Re: Celebrity Death List MMXI / The Death Thread 2011

[OP Tipping]

Happily, Lovitz appears to still be among the living.

[skully]

This arsehole could be the next to die.

"Terry Jones defiant despite murders in Afghanistan over Qur'an burning

US pastor is showing no regrets about an act of hatred that provoked a massacre of UN staff amid deadly riots."

-----------------------------------------------

Redneck arseclown.

[LeFromage]

Yes and no. He's appears to be a bellend. But why should burning some dried wood pulp be anything more or less egregious than what it is? The Qur'an has the exact same make-up as the Bible, or Penthouse. It's only ink and paper. Any extra value we attach to these things are purely self-serving.

Terry Jones may be a backwards, attention-whoring dipstick, but as far as I can tell, he's not a homicidal maniac looking for any excuse to justify his latest killing spree.

Free speech and expression doesn't and shouldn't yield to intimidation and the threat of violence. We don't live in the middle ages - no matter how many of these developmentally-moribund religious fascists wish we did.

[PeterCS]

He's come a long way since Python.



Actually, THE REAL TJ is one of the sanest voices opposing aggressive intolerance re: the myths of establised religions.

[PeterCS]

I agree with Dello that the fundamentalist hothead nutcase is not "to blame" for the murderous acts of the further-incited and stupefied ignorant gang in Afghanistan.

But - like the Danish cartoons, only a lot worse - there is an element of stabbing a hornets' nest for fun. To stage a scene to provoke and inflame a response - once again. It seems also to proclaim an assumed God-given superiority of Idiot 1 v Idiot 2.

He should be arrested, tried for exacerbated religious (and perhaps racial) incitement, and - in my view at least - deserves to be locked up for psychiatric treatment as a result. He is a public danger by his acts of crazed provocation. And he knows darned well what he does.

[LeFromage]

I agree with Dello that the fundamentalist hothead nutcase is not "to blame" for the murderous acts of the further-incited and stupefied ignorant gang in Afghanistan.

But - like the Danish cartoons, only a lot worse - there is an element of stabbing a hornets' nest for fun. To stage a scene to provoke and inflame a response - once again. It seems also to proclaim an assumed God-given superiority of Idiot 1 v Idiot 2.

He should be arrested, tried for exacerbated religious (and perhaps racial) incitement, and - in my view at least - deserves to be locked up for psychiatric treatment as a result. He is a public danger by his acts of crazed provocation. And he knows darned well what he does.

There's your slippery slope. Why shouldn't any religion be openly mocked by those who consider such a thing risible? The charge of provocation could be counter-charged with the argument that religion is provocative and inflammatory.

The only public danger Mr Jones presents is as a fire hazard. The reactions of deluded, infantile lunatics are a separate issue entirely - it'll be a sorry world to live in when we have to bend at the knee to such people or face arrest for daring to question their dogma.

[Growler]

Sage words Peter, I fully concur with your thoughts on this.

[Growler]

Dello, there's a huge difference between mocking and deliberate offensiveness.

There can be no justification at all for the reaction to this act as perpertrated in Afghanistan ......

... on the other hand, there are people still living who saw first hand the extremes of intolerance towards those of a religious nature in the Third Reich.

I don't for a second suggest that you're defending the "Final Solution" ..... but with the freedom of speech comes the responsibility to choose our words with care.

[LeFromage]

There's no such thing as offence. It's an invented convenience to justify an inability to argue or reason an opposing position; a conceited attempt at manoeuvring oneself into the role of victim, deflecting the focus away from the validity of any argument and onto such superficial fare as feelings and sensibilities in an orgy of passive-aggression and projection.

No-one has the right to not be "offended". Deliberately or otherwise.

Tip-toeing around combustible issues for fear of causing upset is the stuff of mealy-mouthed politicians, desperate to cling onto their jobs rather than wrestle with the reality of any given situation head on.

Citizens of a free society don't have to adhere to such insincerities. Nor should they.

[PeterCS]

Dello, there's a huge difference between mocking and deliberate offensiveness. ....

,,,,,

That seems to me also the weakest point of your argument, Jay. Though "offensiveness" is too mild a word.

Mocking is one thing.

Burning a book held to be sacred is doing rather more.

In fact, burning books generally has a (deserved) bad press. It is - literally and symbolically - a destructive act against human culture.

The German poet Heinrich Heine commented in 1821 on just such a doubly incendiary act: "This was just the prelude - where they start burning books, they end up burning human beings as well."

You might say he got his timescale badly out.

On the other hand ......
*LINK*

I hold no torch (ha!) for Islam. But if you want to suggest you know a better way, you are probably better off not apeing the worst of your enemy's worst traits. Extreme intolerance, ignorance, pigheadedness (despite previous warnings) and exacerbated idiocy, for example.

[PeterCS]

There's no such thing as offence. It's an invented convenience to justify an inability to argue or reason an opposing position; a conceited attempt at manoeuvring oneself into the role of victim, deflecting the focus away from the validity of any argument and onto such superficial fare as feelings and sensibilities in an orgy of passive-aggression and projection.

No-one has the right to not be "offended". Deliberately or otherwise.

Tip-toeing around combustible issues for fear of causing upset is the stuff of mealy-mouthed politicians, desperate to cling onto their jobs rather than wrestle with the reality of any given situation head on.

Citizens of a free society don't have to adhere to such insincerities. Nor should they.

You are thereby proposing a life based entirely on (abstract) principles of supposed logic, don't you think? A good rhetorical flourish, but a bloodless one.

[LeFromage]

Mocking is one thing.

Burning a book held to be sacred is doing rather more.

It's a meaningless act against a meaningless concept. The idea that a book can be sacred is as entirely spurious as stating that a lemon is sacred. Or a bit of belly-button fluff. Or a cow.

Hindus must be outraged at all of the burned cows Westerners get through in a week. I'm surprised we've so far managed to dodge that particular bullet.

What next? I presume the Qur’an is on the internet in its entirely. Perhaps that makes hard-drives sacred now. Perhaps Terry Jones' next act will be to smash a computer to pieces with a hammer.

It's only fitting that "offence" should move with the times.

[LeFromage]

There's no such thing as offence. It's an invented convenience to justify an inability to argue or reason an opposing position; a conceited attempt at manoeuvring oneself into the role of victim, deflecting the focus away from the validity of any argument and onto such superficial fare as feelings and sensibilities in an orgy of passive-aggression and projection.

No-one has the right to not be "offended". Deliberately or otherwise.

Tip-toeing around combustible issues for fear of causing upset is the stuff of mealy-mouthed politicians, desperate to cling onto their jobs rather than wrestle with the reality of any given situation head on.

Citizens of a free society don't have to adhere to such insincerities. Nor should they.

You are thereby proposing a life based entirely on (abstract) principles of supposed logic, don't you think? A good rhetorical flourish, but a bloodless one.

I'm not proposing anything, merely applying some degree of rationale to a situation that appears devoid of any.

[PeterCS]

Answering your penultimate contribution:

But that was my (at least intended) point in what I said three posts up.


In rejecting a pusillanimous consideration of (let alone for) other people's values, you seem to be rejecting any consideration of or for other people's values.

If you were saying that you can't make compromises with murderers, arsonists (ha again!) or those with violent or malicious intent generally, I would gladly agree with you.

But how do you propose to influence, or prevail upon, all or any of those with whom you disagree?

With mathematical formulae?


With a ceremonial burning of Voltaire's Candide?

[PeterCS]

An attention to rationale would (at least) investigate the motivations of the agents.

Don't you mean "sweet reason (far above the fray of human life and dirty animals)"?

[LeFromage]

Answering your penultimate contribution:

But that was my (at least intended) point in what I said three posts up.


In rejecting a pusillanimous consideration of (let alone for) other people's values, you seem to be rejecting any consideration of or for other people's values.

If you were saying that you can't make compromises with murderers, arsonists (ha again!) or those with violent or malicious intent generally, I would gladly agree with you.

But how do you propose to influence, or prevail upon, all or any of those with whom you disagree?

With mathematical formulae?


With a ceremonial burning of Voltaire's Candide?

Definitely not with maths. That's my Kryptonite. Along with Kryptonite (which is my maths).

[PeterCS]

We need more Braniacs.

On the banjo.



But the Mekon can go and fly himself.

[PeterCS]

Brainics.

Not Braniacs.

Injections of dietary fibre will not solve the problems of the human race.


Not even soluble fibre.

[LeFromage]

Or Brianiacs.

A Life of Brians can only end badly.

[PeterCS]

Well, you can

Always .....

[Growler]

There's no such thing as offence. It's an invented convenience to justify an inability to argue or reason an opposing position; a conceited attempt at manoeuvring oneself into the role of victim, deflecting the focus away from the validity of any argument and onto such superficial fare as feelings and sensibilities in an orgy of passive-aggression and projection.

No-one has the right to not be "offended". Deliberately or otherwise.

Tip-toeing around combustible issues for fear of causing upset is the stuff of mealy-mouthed politicians, desperate to cling onto their jobs rather than wrestle with the reality of any given situation head on.

Citizens of a free society don't have to adhere to such insincerities. Nor should they.

Rightly or wrongly JD, here in Britain, as you know - people can be prosecuted for so-called "hate crimes" - against homosexuals, people of a different racial/ethnic origin ....... and people of a different religious faith.

I may be wrong, but it looks from here as though you think that referring to people with black skin by the N-word, and people of Asian appearance by the P-word is quite acceptable, and that said people with darker skins should just accept our white supremacy .......

[PeterCS]

Don't provoke the Guvn'r, Growls

[Growler]

I'm not, Peter .....

is my point valid, or my logic flawed in some way ?

[PeterCS]

You have a good point.


But I am getting the same dizzy feeling now that I get whenever, say, the topic of "multiculturalism" comes up again. The term tends to get shaped and curved whichever way the speaker wants.


I think it is generally sound to say that you should attempt to respect the person, even when you don't respect their view(s).

This is of course not always easy. Or even possible. And it might mean a lazy evasion with moral turpitude (as Dello claims) - it depends what that "respect" means in practice.

But if we are talking about ideas, not imminent or actual aggression, physical attack, bullying or demonstrable harassment .....

Without some attempt to establish respect - and preferably informed respect, seeking some insight into what makes the other side tick (this is not meant as an explosive pun!) - how, short of coercive or drastic acts are you likely to influence or shift the views you disagree with?

More generally, how do you show your views are better by adopting a similar mentality of self-blindingly self-righteous bloody-mindedness?


That is too simply put, too schematic, but I am a bit knackered

[LeFromage]

There's no such thing as offence. It's an invented convenience to justify an inability to argue or reason an opposing position; a conceited attempt at manoeuvring oneself into the role of victim, deflecting the focus away from the validity of any argument and onto such superficial fare as feelings and sensibilities in an orgy of passive-aggression and projection.

No-one has the right to not be "offended". Deliberately or otherwise.

Tip-toeing around combustible issues for fear of causing upset is the stuff of mealy-mouthed politicians, desperate to cling onto their jobs rather than wrestle with the reality of any given situation head on.

Citizens of a free society don't have to adhere to such insincerities. Nor should they.

Rightly or wrongly JD, here in Britain, as you know - people can be prosecuted for so-called "hate crimes" - against homosexuals, people of a different racial/ethnic origin ....... and people of a different religious faith.

I may be wrong, but it looks from here as though you think that referring to people with black skin by the N-word, and people of Asian appearance by the P-word is quite acceptable, and that said people with darker skins should just accept our white supremacy .......

Well, as interesting as it that your brain jumped straight to matters of race and white supremacy when no-one was talking about it, it's a bit of a leap to put those words in my mouth.

But I'll bite. What is "quite acceptable"? And to whom, exactly? How were these strictures of social behaviour settled upon? Was there a vote? A phone in? Is there room for debate or revision? Have the goalposts for "quite acceptable" moved at any point in the last, say, 1000 years? Might they again in the future? Who moves them? Do they have a special post-moving tractor? Who drives it? Does he wear a hat at a jaunty angle?

An individual's viewpoint and their right to express it is not subject to approval or sanction. Not in a free society. New Labour's "hate crime" laws were and are a load of reactionary PR crap designed to prove that the UK wasn't at war with Islam. Like the now-defunct blasphemy law, they'll only hold up until someone challenges them, I suspect. For once society accepts the principle that one form of speech or thought is worse than any other, and therefore should be banned, this lays any speech or thought open to censorship and restriction.

Society doesn't mandate that we be liked for our views. Or even respected for them. Would I, personally, like to go around verbally abusing strangers of a different racial make-up? No. Why would I? What would be my motivation?

Do I feel well within my rights to use those terms at my discretion? Of course. They're just words. The only importance they have are the importance we afford them. What if I afford them no importance at all? We've had non-British posters on this board who have used the term "paki" and been bemused to have been pulled up for it as there's no abusive connotation affixed to it in any other country. It's a small-island colloquial slur. Which highlights how bizarre and nonsensical it is that we attach such cultural and historical burdens on various sounds we make in our throats. It isn't the word or term that is hateful. It is the motivation and context behind its use.

Unless you're of the opinion that by merely using - or being open to the possibility of using - such terms you are implicating yourself as a sympathiser or apologist for what they represent. In which case, you'd better steer clear of words like murder, rape, incest and molestation...

[Sponsored content]