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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's book author is said to be God therefore let God guide him.

    Peace.
    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.
    a) The guy was on his own private property

    and

    b) even if he wasn't, there should have been no interference by the state with his political expression. I denigrate both the Bible and the Koran - as I denigrate all obnoxious, superstitious, manipulative, violent, baseless, rambling drivel - and if I wanted to buy 400 copies of each, fill a skip with them, and stir them up with boiling camel diarrhea in full view of literally ANYONE, that would be my property to dispose of as I saw fit. Neither you, nor the politburo deadbeats churning out endless Orwellian directives from Westminster, have any legitimate claim over that freedom.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    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?
    Firstly I wouldn't burn the book, secondly the book shouldn't cost human lives. If I were to burn the Koran and someone were to get murdered because of it or were to get murdered, then it isn't me committing murder or suicide.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
    Firstly I wouldn't burn the book, secondly the book shouldn't cost human lives. If I were to burn the Koran and someone were to get murdered because of it or were to get murdered, then it isn't me committing murder or suicide.
    Yes shouldn't cost lives but it will- we aren't living in some fantasy wonderland where every thing is peaceful and good. So as I said it's the question of whether you value human life more or the right to burn one book and that's all there is to it no matter how much you go around and around the topic that's what it comes down to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yes shouldn't cost lives but it will- we aren't living in some fantasy wonderland where every thing is peaceful and good. So as I said it's the question of whether you value human life more or the right to burn one book and that's all there is to it no matter how much you go around and around the topic that's what it comes down to.
    Well you know already what the answer is, the human life is of course more valuable. Though it's ridiculous that it has come to this, there shouldn't have to be a punishment for burning a piece of literature.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yes shouldn't cost lives but it will- we aren't living in some fantasy wonderland where every thing is peaceful and good. So as I said it's the question of whether you value human life more or the right to burn one book and that's all there is to it no matter how much you go around and around the topic that's what it comes down to.
    By that rationale, all freedoms to express one's convictions could be removed if enough mongoloids went out stabbing in response to their being exercised. History has demonstrated overwhelmingly that the more power of interference is permitted to the state, the more it demands, even if incrementally and therefore beyond people's everyday notice. However mollycoddlingly preventative the justification, the closer we slip down the slope to a complete loss of our own decision-making powers, as the nanny-state will have already mapped out a framework of acceptable behaviours in rancidly illegitimate regulation.

    "Indirect incitement to religious hatred" etc. etc. - **** off. If someone hates a religion, and wants to make his case in the hope that others will take up his point of view, let him speak. Similarly, if some religious people want to make the case that divorce or homosexuality or whatever should be handled differently by society, let them speak - I'm personally likely to find it repellent and stupid, but I don't seek to make that decision for anyone else. In the words of John Stuart Mill, that is an assumption of my own infallibility. If, after hearing these words - or seeing behaviours equivalent to these words, like burning Korans or Bibles - anyone goes out and perpetrates a violent crime, the punishment prescribed for that crime should be meted out.

    Otherwise you preemptively allow these primitive gibbons to win, and no exchange of logic or ideas takes place. Which smells like cowardice and self-destruction to me. The man burning the book is not responsible for the violence of the violent - the violent are. And if we deprive him of his right to peacefully (i.e. non-violently) express his regard for Islam, we allow Muslim bullies to win in the short term, and hand normalisation of sinister and unnecessary powers to state bullies in the long term.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    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.
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Yes shouldn't cost lives but it will- we aren't living in some fantasy wonderland where every thing is peaceful and good. So as I said it's the question of whether you value human life more or the right to burn one book and that's all there is to it no matter how much you go around and around the topic that's what it comes down to.
    Are you suggesting that certain groups of Muslims are nothing more than animals, incapable of reason and restraint? Like Pavlov's dogs, burn Qur'an, behead people.

    Well fine, you can make that argument, but I don't think that's an argument to walk on egg shells around them but instead for their total exclusion from society.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Although the guy is probably a moron, he shouldn't be arrested for this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, arresting a man for burning the Quran is against free speech and free actions. No harm was done to anyone but a book with ridiculous immoral scripture in it. If religious organisations can preach crap to everyone and actually deal out a **** load of destruction, immoral actions and pain to the world (such as following the bible which tells you to kill your son if he speaks out against god, or following the Quran which tells you to stone and kill those who commit apostacy), then surely action can be taken against these barbaric, ridiculous, old fashioned teachings. Personally I believe all religion is a pile of crap as there is no evidence (and no, the bible, torah and quran are not evidencial proof of god) and the fact that children are indoctrined into a faith system in America, Britain, Pakistan etc. using "faith schools" and issued laws just adds to my disbelief and hatred that religion has been allowed into the 21st century... and given this much respect and credibility! I'm sure I'll get some **** for this but whatever, truth matters.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is the point burning a Quran? OK fine you don't like the religion, but what is the need to go out of your way and burn the holy book lol? It just seems pathetic and sad to me, no need to carry all that unnecessary hatred. Get a life and get some better things to do with your time.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    its funny how a BNP politician is arrested for burning a Quran (essentially inciting racial hatred) and so many people get whipped up into a rage about freedom of speech; but when police raid a uni library, arrest numerous foreign students on suspicion of terrorism and hold them without full evidence or charge, and then release the same students (since they were innocent), no one takes notice.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ridiculous, and unbelievable. It's actually worrying how a person can be arrested for such a thing.

    Yet Muslim protesters shouting obscene insults and calling for the deaths of people in broad day light are not interfered with.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snore)
    In that case, you don't believe in freedom of speech at all.
    No not in the sense that you can say absolutely anything you want. Complete freedom of speech is impossible in a civilised, tolerant society.

    I hate how people use the whole "freedom of speech" thing to excuse them saying hurtful and damaging things.

    You can not go about saying what ever you like. If you do you you will have to accept the consequences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoTree)
    What is the point burning a Quran? OK fine you don't like the religion, but what is the need to go out of your way and burn the holy book lol? It just seems pathetic and sad to me, no need to carry all that unnecessary hatred. Get a life and get some better things to do with your time.
    Out of rep for the day. Just wanted to say I totally agree. It is pointless and unnecessary.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If I purchase a copy of the Qur'an it's entirely within my rights to then burn it. It's my ****ing property after all - and if people are offended at my destruction of my property then **** them, it's my property.

    Then we get into the whole freedom issue - freedom of expression should exist, which means if I want to burn a qur'an I should be able to... but no, freedom from offensiveness apparently takes precedent - ITS NOT A FREEDOM!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smophy)
    No not in the sense that you can say absolutely anything you want. Complete freedom of speech is impossible in a civilised, tolerant society.

    I hate how people use the whole "freedom of speech" thing to excuse them saying hurtful and damaging things.

    You can not go about saying what ever you like. If you do you you will have to accept the consequences.
    This is such a painfully self-contradictory statement.

    You think the government, or religious groups, or anyone else, telling us what we can and can't say - effectively what we can and and can't openly think - is "civilised" or "tolerant"?

    The fact that you refer to it as "the whole freedom of speech thing" shows your disregard of how precious a thing it is, and what an indicator it is of how tolerant and enlightened a society is.

    You cannot police people's expression of opinion on the basis that YOU have decided that what they are saying is nasty without assuming your own judgement is absolute and infallible - many will disagree. I for example find much of the dross Christians, Muslims and Jews come out with to be, in your words, "hurtful and damaging", but would be appalled if the authorities came along and decided to shut them up about it - it would be a sign that we lived in a society where the government intervenes in the free exchange of views and ideas. Which is an incredibly disturbing idea - it would be like living in North Korea, or a book by Orwell or Huxley. A self-perpetuating nightmare of censorship and thought-crime.

    Even just practically speaking, it would be impossible to enforce such an absurd 'right' as the right not to be offended - people are too various, and annoy each other too much. How bland would it be to have the government intercept every possible source of disagreement, as well as how sinister?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Snore)
    This is such a painfully self-contradictory statement.

    You think the government, or religious groups, or anyone else, telling us what we can and can't say - effectively what we can and and can't openly think - is "civilised" or "tolerant"?

    The fact that you refer to it as "the whole freedom of speech thing" shows your disregard of how precious a thing it is, and what an indicator it is of how tolerant and enlightened a society is.

    You cannot police people's expression of opinion on the basis that YOU have decided that what they are saying is nasty without assuming your own judgement is absolute and infallible - many will disagree. I for example find much of the dross Christians, Muslims and Jews come out with to be, in your words, "hurtful and damaging", but would be appalled if the authorities came along and decided to shut them up about it - it would be a sign that we lived in a society where the government intervenes in the free exchange of views and ideas. Which is an incredibly disturbing idea - it would be like living in North Korea, or a book by Orwell or Huxley. A self-perpetuating nightmare of censorship and thought-crime.

    Even just practically speaking, it would be impossible to enforce such an absurd 'right' as the right not to be offended - people are too various, and annoy each other too much. How bland would it be to have the government intercept every possible source of disagreement, as well as how sinister?
    Exactly right. I pretty much agree with everything you've said here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smophy)
    I hate how people use the whole "freedom of speech" thing to excuse them saying hurtful and damaging things.
    Well, then tell Muslims to drop the anti-atheist, anti-gay parts of their religion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MangoTree)
    What is the point burning a Quran?
    He wanted to do it and he did it. It's his business.

    I don't get what the point is of praying five times a day to a non-existent diety but some people do it and I don't demand that they justify it.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by SumTingWong)
    its funny how a BNP politician is arrested for burning a Quran (essentially inciting racial hatred) and so many people get whipped up into a rage about freedom of speech; but when police raid a uni library, arrest numerous foreign students on suspicion of terrorism and hold them without full evidence or charge, and then release the same students (since they were innocent), no one takes notice.
    Key word is suspicion and release.

    They were released.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.