It says something about my ability to count. No, it says something about the value you place on human life, whether the lives are American, Afghan, Pakistani, or Indian. You can't run away from that.
I don't get that comparison. Encouraging someone to kill themselves does not fall under freedom of speech. Nice try again. I gave that example to illustrate the power of words, which you were disputing. Interesting to see that you are selectively willing to admit limits on freedom of speech, Mr. Inconsistent.
If you want to know, they actually had just met. It doesn't matter. They were sharing the same cab, already had some sort of temporary relationship and trust between them, and came from the same background and took each others' words in good faith.
By the definition of morality one thing can, in fact, be more moral than another. And yes, I do happen to think that killing because someone burned your favorite book is morally inferior. *shrug* That is not the code we are talking about. We were talking about having uninhibited freedom of speech - something you yourself are inconsistent about as demonstrated above.
Actually you did say that. Allow me to demonstrate... Wow, very clever! Why did you not quote the entire sentence, including the allusion to warfare which you never responded to. Not to mention the entire explanation I gave above to which you you failed to respond to except meaninglessly exclaiming "We know this. We all know this" after separating it from what it was explaining.
I'll excuse this from further comment except to say Oh no, you don't have to excuse anything. In fact I have demonstrated that you will always exercise your right to say whatever you feel like even if it puts the lives of your countrymen at risk. I don't think there's much of a response you can give, except saying that you joined the Army for your country and that makes you a certified patriot.
Even in my own LJ post on the subject I said from the beginning that there are limits to freedom of speech
As a matter of fact you have done no such thing.
I'm thoroughly confused
You would not be if you had read my very first comment on your post carefully instead of going on arguing against things that I had not said and ignoring the ones I did, eventually leading to your accusing me of being a coward for not defending freedom of speech, and further trying to use my religion in order to rile me, and on being called on it making flippant remarks like "It would be like me making a Mexican joke. I'm a beaner, see? I don't care, lol" instead of showing the least bit of regret.
Except for "Fuck civility," the sentence you quote is the last one in your post, contrary to your claim that you "said from the beginning that there are limits to freedom of speech." Instead your opening paragraph is: "So a pastor burned a Qur'an a few days ago in Florida I guess. Muslims have been going nuts over this across the globe. I've seen quite a bit in the news about free speech, it's limitations, and the role of responsible free speech. What's weird is how much blame people are heaping on the pastor. Is freedom of expression a right, or isn't it?"
Oh yes, to repeat what I said in your blog: So you knew I was a Hindu (hell it says that on my profile and you must have added me on LJ after seeing that), and you knew perfectly well it had the potential to be taken as offensive, still you inserted a completely irrelevant mocking reference to Hinduism while arguing with me in a thread that had nothing to do with Hinduism because if I felt offended it will have to be my fault, right?
It is me who is being humorless, instead of you trying to make a personal jab when you had no response to give!
I wonder how sportive you'd be with someone who walked up to your wife or girlfriend and started saying offensive things. I may not mind what you said, but your attitude is the reason why you are so surprised that people outside your country, who consider religion paramount, take offense at the Quran burning. And if you say it's not the same thing, please try to understand that when you attack someone's religion, you're not attacking some invisible man in the sky, you are attacking that person's very being. For that reason, many times such a person feels even more justified to engage in violence than you do to protect your ideal of liberty (at least that's what you claimed earlier, later you said you were only willing to put others' lives in danger as long as yours is safe - link (http://panookah.livejournal.com/85951.html?thread=912063#t912063))
Yes I know it was the religion you were brought up in. And you might also want to think about the number of times I brought up the subject or tried to "correct" you.
You said I was too fearful to defend what I think is right, didn't you?
Whether it is sophistry or pointing out the repeated glaring inconsistencies in your statements would be clear to anyone who reads the two threads. That particular line which you quoted is no exception.
It is clear from my sentence that I didn't explain the violent reaction in terms of the "eight arms" remark but of Quran burning. It is obvious who is employing sophistry. In fact it has been your tactic throughout. Unfortunately for you, the comments are there for anyone to go through.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
No, it says something about the value you place on human life, whether the lives are American, Afghan, Pakistani, or Indian. You can't run away from that.
I don't get that comparison. Encouraging someone to kill themselves does not fall under freedom of speech.
Nice try again. I gave that example to illustrate the power of words, which you were disputing. Interesting to see that you are selectively willing to admit limits on freedom of speech, Mr. Inconsistent.
If you want to know, they actually had just met.
It doesn't matter. They were sharing the same cab, already had some sort of temporary relationship and trust between them, and came from the same background and took each others' words in good faith.
By the definition of morality one thing can, in fact, be more moral than another. And yes, I do happen to think that killing because someone burned your favorite book is morally inferior. *shrug*
That is not the code we are talking about. We were talking about having uninhibited freedom of speech - something you yourself are inconsistent about as demonstrated above.
Actually you did say that. Allow me to demonstrate...
Wow, very clever! Why did you not quote the entire sentence, including the allusion to warfare which you never responded to. Not to mention the entire explanation I gave above to which you you failed to respond to except meaninglessly exclaiming "We know this. We all know this" after separating it from what it was explaining.
I'll excuse this from further comment except to say
Oh no, you don't have to excuse anything. In fact I have demonstrated that you will always exercise your right to say whatever you feel like even if it puts the lives of your countrymen at risk. I don't think there's much of a response you can give, except saying that you joined the Army for your country and that makes you a certified patriot.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
As a matter of fact you have done no such thing.
I'm thoroughly confused
You would not be if you had read my very first comment on your post carefully instead of going on arguing against things that I had not said and ignoring the ones I did, eventually leading to your accusing me of being a coward for not defending freedom of speech, and further trying to use my religion in order to rile me, and on being called on it making flippant remarks like "It would be like me making a Mexican joke. I'm a beaner, see? I don't care, lol" instead of showing the least bit of regret.
no subject
Oh yes, to repeat what I said in your blog: So you knew I was a Hindu (hell it says that on my profile and you must have added me on LJ after seeing that), and you knew perfectly well it had the potential to be taken as offensive, still you inserted a completely irrelevant mocking reference to Hinduism while arguing with me in a thread that had nothing to do with Hinduism because if I felt offended it will have to be my fault, right?
It is me who is being humorless, instead of you trying to make a personal jab when you had no response to give!
I wonder how sportive you'd be with someone who walked up to your wife or girlfriend and started saying offensive things. I may not mind what you said, but your attitude is the reason why you are so surprised that people outside your country, who consider religion paramount, take offense at the Quran burning. And if you say it's not the same thing, please try to understand that when you attack someone's religion, you're not attacking some invisible man in the sky, you are attacking that person's very being. For that reason, many times such a person feels even more justified to engage in violence than you do to protect your ideal of liberty (at least that's what you claimed earlier, later you said you were only willing to put others' lives in danger as long as yours is safe - link (http://panookah.livejournal.com/85951.html?thread=912063#t912063))
Yes I know it was the religion you were brought up in. And you might also want to think about the number of times I brought up the subject or tried to "correct" you.
You said I was too fearful to defend what I think is right, didn't you?
no subject
It is clear from my sentence that I didn't explain the violent reaction in terms of the "eight arms" remark but of Quran burning. It is obvious who is employing sophistry. In fact it has been your tactic throughout. Unfortunately for you, the comments are there for anyone to go through.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject