[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-April-06, 03:56, said:

this sounds suspiciously close to a defense, or at the very least a justification...

Not to a careful reader.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-06, 06:22, said:

Let's extend this analogy a little...

In mid August, I wander up into the hills outside LA and toss a a few Molotov cocktail's into some stands of dry trees, setting off massive brush fires that destroy entire neighborhoods and kill a dozen people.

According to your logic, I don't bear any blame since the nature of dry wood is to burn...

i don't think that analogy holds, though you might could find one that does... one is an illegal act and the other legal... i could be wrong here, but i think it's a settled legal question that the consequences of an illegal act fall on the one acting

PassedOut, on 2011-April-06, 07:59, said:

Not to a careful reader.

i read it again, carefully... here's what you said:

Quote

But calling the Quran simply "a book" understates its importance to Muslims, who are dead certain that every word in the Quran comes directly from God. I've been told that the sheer poetry of the Quran surpasses the ability of any mortal, let alone that of an illiterate prophet. So, burning the Quran contemptuously insults God. It's this insult to God that elicits the violent reaction, not the fact that "a book" has been removed from circulation.

as i said, so what if muslims believe exactly as you say they do? maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, or in the way you meant to say it, but the above is very close to an attempt at justification

[nigel_k]

luke warm, on 2011-April-06, 16:09, said:

i don't think that analogy holds, though you might could find one that does... one is an illegal act and the other legal... i could be wrong here, but i think it's a settled legal question that the consequences of an illegal act fall on the one acting

The existence of an intervening voluntary bad act makes all the difference in my opinion, and chopping heads off innocent people would qualify as one of those.

[awm]

The question of "how crazy" people are has to come into the discussion somewhere.

What I mean is, if a TV personality says on the air that "Obama likes to drink beer" and then some crazy prohibitionist tries to shoot the president because he believes what he saw on TV, we don't blame the TV personality. This is because shooting someone for liking beer is crazy.

On the other hand, if a TV personality says on the air that "Obama is trying to kill your grandma" and then some grandma-loving person tries to shoot the president because he believes what he saw on TV.... that is potentially a different story. This is because defending your grandma's life is substantially less crazy than shooting someone based on their beverage preferences.

In general, I am responsible if my actions directly cause harm to others. I am also responsible if my words or actions are such that they would convince a reasonable (not crazy) person to cause harm to others. If a crazy person uses my words or actions as an excuse to harm others when no reasonable person would ever do so, I am not responsible. Obviously this is somewhat subject to personal (and legal) judgment. But I think we can agree that killing people who weren't even involved in the Qu'ran burning falls into the crazy camp.

[Winstonm]

When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.

Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times.

My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-April-06, 16:09, said:

as i said, so what if muslims believe exactly as you say they do? maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, or in the way you meant to say it, but the above is very close to an attempt at justification

Not at all. If my statements were not accurate, feel free to offer specific corrections.

[kenberg]

Describing the pastor as stupid or idiotic doesn't quite fit for me. If a guy goes to Afghanistan and burns the Qu'ran in public while there, that seems stupid. He would shortly be a dead idiot. Getting other people killed for his publicity stunt is not necessarily evidence of a low IQ. If the result was in accordance with his intentions, then I guess he is a success on his terms.

I think the pastor is scum. Scum often know all their legal rights, every last one of them, and can explain their moral mission to all who will listen. They are still scum. I give everyone full permission to rephrase "scum" in any moral terms they wish, but the guy is still scum.

This in no way whatsoever is intended to excuse someone killing someone else because the sum insulted his faith. It's not even an excuse for killing the pastor, although I would shed few tears. That the killers are responsible for their actions in no way changes the fact that the pastor is scum.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-06, 17:11, said:

When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.

Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times.

My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.

Wasps don't think, they act on instinct. Humans think. Are you saying that the murderers in the incident at hand are not human? They are to be forgiven what they've done because they're sub-human?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-06, 16:09, said:

i don't think that analogy holds, though you might could find one that does... one is an illegal act and the other legal...

Comment 1: You used the word "blame" which has a very different context than "legal"

Comment 2: I'd appreciate a comment from one of the lawyers present... Can I bring a civil suit against some one who hasn't broken a law?

Quote

i could be wrong here, but i think it's a settled legal question that the consequences of an illegal act fall on the one acting

Comment 3: My understanding is that negligence can be apportioned between multiple parties

[mike777]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-04, 21:06, said:

It had to happen - a Florida church finally burned a copy of the Quran, leading to violent protests in Afghanistan. What exactly was the point of this episode other than to use the Islamic faith as a proxy for Salem witches?

If this is ATB then:


25% the moron preacher
75% the murderers who chopped off heads--


I hope moderate Muslims around the world will step up.
Moderate Christians already call this preacher an idiot at best.

[nige1]

Agree with helene_t.

[matmat]

I wonder how much extra the state of Florida (and the feds!) now have to pay to protect his sorry ass.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-06, 17:11, said:

When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.
Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times. My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.

The pastor as a 9-year-old boy is close enough but, IMO, your wasp analogy is patronising and racist. It demeans those whom you wish to exonerate. They weren't instinct-driven insects -- they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor -- they expressed their belated disapproval by killing strangers.

Oh No
I see I've agreed with Blackshoe, again

[blackshoe]

Heh.

[helene_t]

awm, on 2011-April-06, 16:29, said:

What I mean is, if a TV personality says on the air that "Obama likes to drink beer" and then some crazy prohibitionist tries to shoot the president because he believes what he saw on TV, we don't blame the TV personality. This is because shooting someone for liking beer is crazy.

I don't think it matters per se whether it takes craziness or not to kill Obama.

If I give a loaded gun to a lunatic and tell him only to use it in self defense, and he then kills some random bystander, am I responsible? I would say it depends on whether I should have known (or at least catered to the possibility) that he was a lunatic.

The pastor should have known (in fact he probably did know) of the likely consequences of his action.

[blackshoe]

There are laws against "inciting to riot" or "yelling fire in a crowded theater" or suchlike. Whether what the pastor has done goes beyond "freedom of expression" and falls under one of the aforementioned laws is a matter for the courts to decide. Of course, the courts won't get the chance unless some prosecutor somewhere, or possibly a Grand Jury, decides to indict. It seems likely that if that were going to happen, it would have already.

[y66]

Quote

... they were intelligent human beings, aware of what they were doing. They didn't reflexly sting their tormentor ...

I thought the reflexive, unthinking elements of the analogy were apt.

Also, it is hardly demeaning or racist to compare human attributes and actions to those of non-human creatures. For example, if you say someone "floats like a butterfly, stings like a bee" you are not demeaning them in a racist way.

Come on.

[olegru]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-06, 17:11, said:

When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.

Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times.

My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.

Very nice analogy.
By the way is the large wasp nest still in your grandfather's house?

Or your childish actions and suffering finaly forced adults to make smarter actions to prevent their kids to be sting by wasps?

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-06, 17:11, said:

When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.

Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times.

My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.

I actually have a very similar story, however

1. I went to war with a set of yellow jackets rather than wasps
2. I was closer to 13
3. I decided that chlorine gas was the way to go

Luckily, my best friend's father was smart enough to understand what mixing two parts bleach to one part ammonia does and took quick action to prevent the "death cloud" from engulfing the neighborhood...

[hrothgar]

Interesting article discussing the chain of events

http://www.poynter.o...edia-blackouts/