[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2011-April-08, 07:44, said:

Megalomaniac psychopaths typically use "Patriotism" as well as "Religion" to stir up trouble. (For example, In Northern Ireland,. The "men of violence" (on both sides) were mostly irreligious petty-criminals who would normally have been satisfied with vandalising telephone-boxes and the like. Charismatic leaders welded those individuals into coherent mafia-like forces for evil, using patriotism and religion to rationalize murder and extortion, armed by terrorist fund-raisers abroad). We should all examine our prejudices and beliefs in the light of that good advice. Unfortunately, the lesson of history is that we don't learn from history and

I agree. I hope it is understood that when I talk of delusional belief I am not talking only about religious beliefs. There can be danger in the 100% certainty held for any specific belief, regardless of whether that belief is religious.

I use the word irrational in a similar way, not as an argument for being "right" but to differentiate the method of reaching a held position. Irrational to me does not mean wrong - it means the conclusion was reached by irrational means.

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2011-April-06, 19:06, said:

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?

Of course you can. A criminal court found OJ not guilty of murder, yet he was successfully sued for wrongful death. This is a common strategy due to the different standards of proof required in criminal and civil trials.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2011-April-09, 01:16, said:

Of course you can. A criminal court found OJ not guilty of murder, yet he was successfully sued for wrongful death. This is a common strategy due to the different standards of proof required in criminal and civil trials.

Thanks. nice example

[helene_t]

Maybe I haven't understood the OJ case correctly but wasn't the civil-court verdict based on the premise that he had broken the law, it was just that the evidence was not strong enough to get him convicted in a criminal court?

Another example: there is this concept of objective liability. If I get injured during my work and it was just a plain accident then I can hold my employer responsible even if he did all he can legally be required to do to prevent the injury.

[kenberg]

I once had a neighbor who was actively involved in the lunatic fringe of the anti-abortion groups. He had a web site that would list the names and addresses of abortion doctors along with X's or checkmarks or some such (I never actually saw it but I believe I have this about right) beside the names of those who had been killed. I think that civil action against him was successful, criminal action was not. He had been convicted earlier for more direct action, but not for his website advocacy. I can't say that I know the details.

At some point I think it should be possible to at least bring civil action and maybe criminal action based on this "violence at a distance" but I confess to muddled thinking. My neighbor was, in essence, advocating and enabling the killing of specific individuals. The pastor was acting in a manner that he could be pretty sure would cause death to someone somewhere. I would not want to be the one explaining the difference to a child whose mother has just been blown up, but I guess that I do sense some sort of difference.

It's tough. My older daughter travels for work, including to some countries I would prefer she not spend time in. The idea that she could end up dead from such a chain of events is upsetting.

[luke warm]

mike777, on 2011-April-08, 13:47, said:

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

hrothgar, on 2011-April-08, 16:41, said:

Bullshit

This event was entirely foreseeable

something tells me this isn't an argument you'd be making had it been a bible burned and, as a result, "christians" began slaughtering others

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-09, 07:30, said:

something tells me this isn't an argument you'd be making had it been a bible burned and, as a result, "christians" began slaughtering others

I beg to differ...

I've always been very equal opportunity in condemning the Abrahamic religions...
I think that they are all quite nasty in their own special ways.

Please note: While I have been very quick to condemn the actions of the pastor, I have in no way excused the activities of the various actors in Afghanistan
From Kharzai on down to the individuals comprising the mob, there is lots of blame to go around.

[Winstonm]

Quote

mike777, on 2011-April-08, 14:47, said:

As I said the pastor is a moron. But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off of people who had nothing to do with the book burning.

These people had children and spouses who will never get to be with them again.

Arguing that the book-burners hold the moral high ground sounds to me like an argument that one belief system is superior because one set of bad guys only burn books while the other set kills.

That seems the same reason the Florida church burned the book in the first place - to illustrate the superiority of their belief system by castigating a competing belief system.

How very circular.

[kenberg]

On the "Whose ox is being gored" front I offer the following:

Carroll County Maryland, my current place of residence, was recently in the news. A soldier's funeral was picketed by the Kansas church bozos and the parents sued because of emotional distress (close enough anyway, I don't know the exact grounds). The Supreme court recently sided with the church. I suppose the court is right. Our Constitution gives people the right to be thoroughly repulsive. Still, if someone kicked their asses in front of thirty witnesses and on film, it might be difficult to get a jury to convict the kickers. Shooting them would be another matter though, however satisfying the fantasy.

[ggwhiz]

The words "Moral high ground" don't belong.

I'm no lawyer but the words "Depraved indifference" come to mind for the Florida crowd who had full knowledge of the Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoon. For some of the Wiki-Leaks naming of names postings too.

It would suit me to hold everyone to account and turns my stomach that the murderers are more likely to get a medal.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-09, 09:25, said:

Arguing that the book-burners hold the moral high ground sounds to me like an argument that one belief system is superior because one set of bad guys only burn books while the other set kills.

i didn't take mike's post as ascribing moral high ground to anyone, i took it as saying that questions of morality don't enter into burning a book... stupidity, yes... immorality, no

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on 2011-April-10, 06:23, said:

i didn't take mike's post as ascribing moral high ground to anyone, i took it as saying that questions of morality don't enter into burning a book... stupidity, yes... immorality, no

Really?

Quote

But there is no moral equivalency between burning a Holy Book and chopping the heads off

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension skills, then.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on 2011-April-10, 07:19, said:

I guess I need to work on my reading comprehension skills, then.

Not you.

[barmar]

luke warm, on 2011-April-10, 06:23, said:

i didn't take mike's post as ascribing moral high ground to anyone, i took it as saying that questions of morality don't enter into burning a book... stupidity, yes... immorality, no

There's no moral issue in deliberately insulting the cherished beliefs of more than 1/5 of the world?

Free speech gives you the right to say just about anything, but that doesn't mean everything is appropriate.

[1eyedjack]

Granted that gratuitously insulting anyone is somewhat gauche, is it any more relatively reprehensible that you are insulting 1/5 of the population than insulting a single individual?

[mycroft]

kenberg, on 2011-April-09, 09:56, said:

Carroll County Maryland, my current place of residence, was recently in the news. A soldier's funeral was picketed by the Kansas church bozos and the parents sued because of emotional distress (close enough anyway, I don't know the exact grounds). The Supreme court recently sided with the church. I suppose the court is right. Our Constitution gives people the right to be thoroughly repulsive. Still, if someone kicked their asses in front of thirty witnesses and on film, it might be difficult to get a jury to convict the kickers. Shooting them would be another matter though, however satisfying the fantasy.

I hate to tell you this, Ken, but those bozos would just *love it* if someone kicked their asses. They know the law (in fact, almost all of the adults are practising lawyers), and they *don't* break it (even if they do bend it a little) - and they sue anyone who *does* break it. And juries convict (or at least award damages).

It is argued that that is their entire reason for what they are doing - they hope to piss off people, and live off the proceeds of the lawsuits. Those people argue that they do not in fact believe anything they rant on about; their goal is simply to cause enough offence to vulnerable people that those people, in retaliation, will do something understandably rash, but legally actionable. I have read that they are quite successful in that (repugnant) way of making a living.

[luke warm]

barmar, on 2011-April-10, 23:26, said:

There's no moral issue in deliberately insulting the cherished beliefs of more than 1/5 of the world?

have you ever felt that way about any posts in the wc concerning religions other than muslim? in any case, i'm not sure morality enters into it (not the words themselves, at least)

Quote

Free speech gives you the right to say just about anything, but that doesn't mean everything is appropriate.

i think that's been admitted

1eyedjack, on 2011-April-11, 00:53, said:

Granted that gratuitously insulting anyone is somewhat gauche, is it any more relatively reprehensible that you are insulting 1/5 of the population than insulting a single individual?

it would, evidently, depend on the individual - or which of the 1/5 of the population is being insulted

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-April-11, 15:57, said:

it would, evidently, depend on the individual - or which of the 1/5 of the population is being insulted

How so?

[matmat]

PassedOut, on 2011-April-11, 16:16, said:

How so?

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2011-April-11, 15:40, said:

I hate to tell you this, Ken, but those bozos would just *love it* if someone kicked their asses. They know the law (in fact, almost all of the adults are practising lawyers), and they *don't* break it (even if they do bend it a little) - and they sue anyone who *does* break it. And juries convict (or at least award damages). It is argued that that is their entire reason for what they are doing - they hope to piss off people, and live off the proceeds of the lawsuits. Those people argue that they do not in fact believe anything they rant on about; their goal is simply to cause enough offence to vulnerable people that those people, in retaliation, will do something understandably rash, but legally actionable. I have read that they are quite successful in that (repugnant) way of making a living.

If we have no more than "argument" to support such speculation, should we impugn a group's religious integrity? Isn't that what this thread should deplore? Or is it OK to insult a religious group, gratuitously, provided that we don't fear violent retaliation? I admit to the mote in mine own eye.