Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Wow TSR has soooo many clever people. Here let me break it down:

    1) Burn Quran= Freedom of Speech.
    2) But also= almost guaranteed riots and deaths.
    3) Do you value human life more or the right of a BNP knob to offend others?

    Clearly it's the latter for a lot of people. Use some common sense and pragmatism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
    Humble yourself for defending a mind set where a book can be worth more than a human life. Although in this case the man was foolish and of course "only" went to prison, lives have been taken for burning the Koran.

    To value a book more than a life is barbaric.
    A book is not worth more than a life in your opinion and yet you're all for the right to burn a book even if the deed costs human lives?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    This is illogical and presumptuous.

    Me saying hello to someone can indirectly cause their death. Ergo people should never say hello to someone.

    Go back and read my original point about the intent being key.
    Ok so essentially your logic was that book burning should be legal unless there was intent to 'use it in a negative manner'. Why not say that people ought to be allowed to use guns as long as they do not intend to use them in a negative manner, e.g. they do not intend to harm someone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    I don't really understand why you would want to burn one :\

    anyway, in my view, freedom of speech doesn't include the freedom to deliberately offend other people's culture, religion or traditions
    In that case, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Ok so essentially your logic was that book burning should be legal unless there was intent to 'use it in a negative manner'. Why not say that people ought to be allowed to use guns as long as they do not intend to use them in a negative manner, e.g. they do not intend to harm someone?
    Because guns directly kill people and burning books doesn't. Guns are a weapon, that is what they are created to be, books are not. The nature of the object need be considered. I understand your point, but my argument was not a universal one.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Completely wrong to arrest someone for burning a religious book which belongs to them. As usual, the government is reducing the rights of Whites in order to appease the Muslims. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's just unnecessary. People only ever do this to cause offence and upset. Its not the action that really matters to me but the reason they did it.

    People talk of his freedom to burn the quran. That is a ridiculous point really. You have the freedom to do as you please (as long you don't break laws) but this is clearly to cause upset and controversy. No one should have that freedom. It's just like freedom of speech. You have the freedom to say what you want in my view but you do not have the freedom to say anything intended to hurt or upset other people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He should get exactly the same punishment as the poppy burner.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    Because guns directly kill people and burning books doesn't. Guns are a weapon, that is what they are created to be, books are not. The nature of the object need be considered. I understand your point, but my argument was not a universal one.
    Ok but why does the 'directedness' matter? On what grounds should people not be allowed weapons? Just because weapons are sometimes used badly doesn't mean that we should ban them, does it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadow99)
    He should get exactly the same punishment as the poppy burner.
    No, neither should be punished.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    Ok but why does the 'directedness' matter? On what grounds should people not be allowed weapons? Just because weapons are sometimes used badly doesn't mean that we should ban them, does it?
    They are not banned - they are allowed when the person shows they have a reason to have one - in the case of firearms. If they can't do this it is reasonable to assume they may use it as a weapon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What an idiot. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but people in politics really ought to be a tad more diplomatic :P

    What is burning a book sacred to a group of people supposed to achieve anyway? xD

    It's probably a good thing that he's in jail - he's probably safer that way lol
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    They are not banned - they are allowed when the person shows they have a reason to have one - in the case of firearms. If they can't do this it is reasonable to assume they may use it as a weapon.
    I'm sorry but this is bull****. The burden of proof should be on the state/police/cps to show that someone has a bad intent. In other words there should be full scale legalisation of firearms and only those who can be shown to have bad intent not be allowed weapons. This is exactly how it is with knives. Everyone is allowed knives except those who have bad purposes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catatonia)
    What an idiot. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but people in politics really ought to be a tad more diplomatic :P

    What is burning a book sacred to a group of people supposed to achieve anyway? xD

    It's probably a good thing that he's in jail - he's probably safer that way lol
    Or perhaps the state should protect his right to freedom of speech.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    I'm sorry but this is bull****. The burden of proof should be on the state/police/cps to show that someone has a bad intent. In other words there should be full scale legalisation of firearms and only those who can be shown to have bad intent not be allowed weapons. This is exactly how it is with knives. Everyone is allowed knives except those who have bad purposes.
    No, people are allowed knives because their primary use is cutting food.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smophy)
    It's just unnecessary. People only ever do this to cause offence and upset. Its not the action that really matters to me but the reason they did it.

    People talk of his freedom to burn the quran. That is a ridiculous point really. You have the freedom to do as you please (as long you don't break laws) but this is clearly to cause upset and controversy. No one should have that freedom. It's just like freedom of speech. You have the freedom to say what you want in my view but you do not have the freedom to say anything intended to hurt or upset other people.

    In that case, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    No, people are allowed knives because their primary use is cutting food.
    So people can only legally own things when the state approves of their purpose? You are a statist, as I presumed. Pathetic.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by beepbeeprichie)
    So people can only legally own things when the state approves of their purpose? You are a statist, as I presumed. Pathetic.
    Fair enough. You are a Libertarian. You may well be pathetic, but I'm not going to call you ti for believing something other than what I believe. Have a nice day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shadow99)
    He should get exactly the same punishment as the poppy burner.
    Neither act warrants punishment by the state, they were simply demonstrating their political convictions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by didgeridoo12uk)
    so is burning the koran yet everyone claims thats protected under free speech.

    saying you hate the bible is perfectly fine, burning one in public wouldn't be.
    Yes but sex in public has always been unacceptable. But burning books in public is completely understandable.. Like muslims that burnt salman rushdi's book.. If a muslim can burn a salman rushdi book and offend the fans then why can't the fans burn the quran and offend the muslims? unless you're giving a special value to the 'holy books' or considering muslims more important than salman rushdi's fans then surely these deeds should be equally bad.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.