An anarchist moonbat once said "if we don't believe in free expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
U.N. Employees Beheaded Over Quran Burning
- Thread starter CUBert
- Start date
I have said exactly the opposite many times, I am basing this on what appears to be the common opinion most other people in here who actually spew crap like that and beleive it.
Once again based upon what seems to be the opinion of the majority in here so from that opinion it could be a resonable belief. I have a different opinion of muslims in general and am simply using the majority opinion against them.
I had to go back a bit to actually find the challenge as you added it after the fact.
It is upon the principle of reasonable belief he is liable for the causative effect. His negligence is actually irrelavent to the argument.
Reasonable belief is not a test of whether an individual on trial reasonably believes the posibility of the result but if a reasonable person could foresee the possible outcome. Since the majority opinion in here is that the Afghanis are murderous and animalistic by nature and we have to assume the majority is reasonable we can then infer that a reasonable person could see this as a likely or probable outcome of the Rev's actions.
Aren't legal arguments grand. The majority opinion to which I dissent from is actully proving my case.
You got the moonbat part nailed. You realise that he supports speech restrictions on campus's?
But he's a firm supporter of Israeli apartheid week.
Well then, you just shattered your argument.
No reasonable person would think Muslims would react that way.
Thanx for conceding to that.
Rhetoric, gets the boot in a court of law.
That's a nifty term, but I still can't find it cited in domestic law. Not to mention, I already cited how your use of it, is outside the terms context, from the pdf you supplied.
Because he wasn't negligent, as you already proved, and conceded to.
Great argument, if a judge wouldn't laugh you out of the court for trying to introduce the tone of a forum as evidence...
While you destroy it. Good work.
You can try and use Cannucks patented word play until the cows come home. But like him, it just makes you look silly. At least I gave you the respect you deserved when I was presented with reality. I can see my respect was misplaced.
Last edited:
Never doubting that two can never be as mislead as one. If the IDF can hold trials behind closed doors the so can others, we might not like the final verdict but have to suck it up, just like anybody who didn't like the IDF explanations. You can't grasp that?
Where does Israel come into this quran thing.....
Oh......I get it.....the goal post has been moved again...sorry...or is that what Bear calls deflecting....Shyte...I will have to pause and look it up..
Gawd you're a sneaky little bugger....
Sorry about using your favorite smiley Bear....but I thought it was appropriate;-)
Obviously you have little experience in a courtroom. It is not about who is right or wrong and a lot of time not even about the law but who can use legal terms and principles to make the most convincing argument. The majority opinion in this forum can be easily supplanted by the majority opinion in the general public, which we both know (especially in the US) is the opinion that Muslims are murderous, and therefore the argument I make is quite logical and convincing regardless of whether my opinion or belief is different. A judge or jury would never have the benefit of our prior exchanges in here to draw from in making their determination. I will admit that it would stand a much greater chance of success with a jury as they are easily swayed by emotion and public opinion.
As for your respect I neither desire it or care about it. You have changed your tune and even the entire subject a few times, like saying a term does not exist and when proven wrong it is all of a sudden not the question of existence but the context of the document that provides the proof. Your constant references to moral relativism are laughable attempts at deflection from an issue because morality is relative to the situation and circumstances under discussion. You have even gone so far as to falsely state my opinion on a subject is something other than what I have declared it to be which may help justify your argument but is just an argument based upon untruth. If your constant attempts to convince yourself you are superior helps you sleep better then go for it.
No change at all, that is what happens when the truth bounces off somebody. The UN will have to be satisfied with the outcome of any trial in Afghanistan over the deaths. If the happen to be found not guilty you would accept that, yes or no.
Please don't call me sneaky when this is where you have driven me, ............... or did I drag you here????
I'm not suggesting that it is art. I'm saying it's protected and legal, like expressing yourself in other ways. What about harmful words people say? We still protect their right to say it right?
Also, the koran is not a "holy" book because it's not divinely inspired like the bible was! (2 Timothy 3:16)
And I do think that some had murder on their mind because it's no secret that radical Muslims think they're in the middle of Jihad. They want to do "good deeds" for Allah, which includes killing the infidels, commanded by the koran.
In fact, the book burning in the states happened on March 20th, and no one noticed it wasn't until some politically motivated people in Afghanistan used the incident as an excuse to riot!
Different laws and morals in societies does not prove morality is relative! There is a difference between the ABSOLUTE moral command (what) and the relative way it is manifested in cultures(how). All cultures have some form of greeting, which is an expression of love and respect. However, cultures differ widely on just what that greeting is. In some it's a kiss, in others a handshake or a bow. What should be done is common to all cultures, but how it should be done differs.
Failure to makes this distinction would have you believe that because people have different practices they have different values. The moral value is absolute, but how it is practiced is relative.
Also, you can believe in a left wing social safety net and at the same time believe in the right to bear arms because God gave you a brain and a free will, not because morality is relative! In fact, it's the ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARD within you that assures you that it's wrong not have a safety net, it's wrong for my government not to be fiscally responsible, it's wrong to steal from me and it's wrong to deny freedom of expression to Terry Jones!
Last edited:
I obviously can't prove that silly assertion to be just that, silly, without jeopardizing my anonymity, but I've actually met DaSleeper, and he's well aware of my legal knowledge and experience.
Which is all irrelevant, since you've shown no comprehensive knowledge of law. Hence your silly jibe about the Constitution.
Right. Which is why rhetoric, will get you laughed out of a courtroom. It's called "editorializing".
You haven't made an argument, you avoided that challenge. All you did was state your opinion using a term that has no context in the matter.
But are still charge by the Judge, to deliberate within the law. Unless you're talking about a civil trial. You should stop watching so much Law & Order and Judge Judy.
That's obvious. Which is why I said it was misplaced. You didn't, and don't deserve it, and trust me, won't get it again.
Well ya. I conceded it existed and you didn't make it up. But the fact remains, it has no standing, as you're using it. I suggest you go back, and read the article you cited, specifically the chapter on "Causative Effect". There is nothing in that chapter, or that article for that matter, that remotely supports the analogy you offered.
And since it is your term, and your contention that it applies, I suggest you prove it, if you think I'm wrong.
I actually agree, when your morality doesn't contradict itself, as yours does. Nice deflection though.
I already proved that to be false. Just because it shows your error, doesn't make it wrong.
I didn't need any convincing. And I always sleep just fine.
Objectivity, you should try it sometime.
Last edited:
And Islam is a religion of peace and love and understanding.:roll:
And the pope's a Baptist.
Just sayin.
Considering the truthfulness of the statement good thing it was short. If we are over there fighting them then we are the aggressors, again. If we lie to our own citizens to get us over there then they have the right to repulse us using any ****ing method they choose and we cannot condemn them because if we were under military invasion we would be doing the very same thing, .... or run the chance of being a trator and all the **** that goes along with that should your former friends find out.
Looks like you have taken lessons from Avro with your inane question (in bold)
Or you have moved the goal posts to move the onus of proving a point away from you...those little games won't work because I see through you.
The point of the discussion is cause and effect whether the quran burner is responsible(legal responsibility) for the actions of the extremists in Afghanistan.
I think Corduroy nailed it in her post...if you can argue against that you are hopeless.
The bold is mine for the reading impaired;-)
And you have taken up the habit of not giving any answer at all. Jello legs or what?
How is that, the Americans will deal with the burner and the ones in Afghanistan seem to have gotten away so retribution will be for the US to burn the village with the villagers still in it, as a lesson if nothing else. Or are you saying that you agree with my version. a show trial and all the villagers get off. They won't ever be caught even if it was just as promoted. Now that this event is widely publicised would it be different for the next Pastor (or equal) to burn the book and publish it a media that could see similar results? I'm only trying to determine if the goose/gander parable applies.
I already stated that I think it depends if he had thought of that end but discarded it even though there were similar results from an event that he was about to do. If he was charged and found innocent and he repeated the action and 'they' repeated their responce would he be guilty then. Even if he was found innocent of criminal deed the families of the victims should be able to win in a wrongful death suit, or at least get the issue as far as a trial. (using Rachael Cory as an example). Being part of the UN may have papers that prevent that from happening.
Any Christians mention that NATO burning Bibles is somewhat 'strange', stranger still is no response at all from people like the Pastor.
Just taking the 'wrong' side of an issue is enough to get somebody the 'hopeless' brand, nobody said the truth would be in the biggest crowd.
Thinking doesn't make it a fact though.
Lets put the game in the right perspective, players from both sides have been sniped and the benches have been bombed several times by friend and foe alike. The one to tag is the one promoting the first act that defines the gathering as a riot.
Wouldn't it be nice for the Lawyers if sports itself could be named in a class action suit for enticing riots that supplying a medium that gets people overly excited, even though they knew riots have been numerous. Soccer would be held in the dungeons along with illegal everything. Music and film merchants found guilty of conspiracy to entice 'normal folk' to commit acts of piracy due to excessive advertising, or some other lame reasoning. Obviously only one side is going to want to be in court.
Last edited:
Yea, I would have to agree with this. It bears a similar line of logic regarding rape in the ****walk thread, and also dispels the idea that the 9/11 mosque was a direct provocation as well. To condone this and not the latter seems pretty hypocritical.
In my gut, I hold the postor accountable. Legally? No, of course he's not legally accountable. Saying someone holds responsibility as a human being, and responsibility according to the law, aren't always the same thing. I hope the reactions of people to his lunacy weigh on his heart and mind.
