Patterico's Pontifications

4/5/2011

Pinheads Everywhere on Koran Burning and Obama Worship

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 7:15 pm



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Update: Instalink! Thanks, Mr. Reynolds. And yes, this is a long one, but stick around to the end for a clip from Blazing Saddles, and a dirty joke.

This is mostly a follow up to my post on Koran-burning, and even Obama’s official kick off to his reelection campaign.

Now to start off with a non-pinhead, I forgot to mention Chris Hitchens’ views on the subject of Koran burning.  To a certain extent his column is kind of an extended exclamation of “not this crud again…”  And he is right that it is tiresome given that those of us in the Free World should get it and we have already been through several rounds of this.  But one interesting angle he does bring to the discussion is the role Afghan President Hamid Karzai played in whipping this up:

But this narrowness pales beside the truly awful opportunism and cynicism of Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. In previous cases of irrational violence, such as the bloody riots that occurred on the mere rumor of a Quran being desecrated in Guantanamo, he had taken quite a responsible line (pointing out, for example, that one library destroyed by the incendiaries had contained several fine old Qurans). Unlike some provincial mullahs, Karzai also knows perfectly well that the U.S. government is constitutionally prohibited from policing religious speech among its citizens. Yet, when faced with the doings of the aforementioned moronic cleric from Gainesville, he went out of his way to intensify mob feeling. This caps a long period where his behavior has come to seem like a conscious collusion with warlordism, organized crime, and even with elements of the Taliban. Already under constant pressure to make consistent comments about Syria and Libya, the Obama administration might want to express itself more directly about a man for whose fast-decomposing regime we are shedding our best blood.

As they say read the whole thing.

But let’s get to the pinheads, starting with Bill O’Reilly.  Indeed, I picked the term “pinhead” precisely because O’Reilly likes to use that term, a lot, and he definitely was one last night in his Talking Points Memo.  Much of it is good and even touches on Hitchens’ point, but then he veers off and attacks Terry Jones.  And I don’t even mind when he called Jones an idiot.  But to say he has blood on his hands?  No, Bill, he does not.

You can watch the whole thing, here, and the swipe at Jones comes around the 50 second mark:

Meanwhile, do I have to call Charles Johnson a pinhead?  Well, okay, it is shooting fish in a barrel, but let’s play compare and contrast, shall we?  Remember the Danish cartoon controversy.  Well, here Johnson writes:

Big media in the US are too scared to do it, but a few local papers like the Fort Myers News-Press have published the cartoons of blasphemy.

Interestingly, it’s apparently impossible to read the comments to that post.  I wonder what he is hiding?  And the link to the cartoons is dead, but this one works (a link I found by…  searching LGF).

And here is a post with the title Western Weakness Watch where he writes:

The president of Ireland is in Saudi Arabia, condemning the publication of the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy.

And here he writes:

Huge crowds turned out in Turkey to scream and vent their rage and throw rocks at the French (a pretty safe pastime)[.]  But al-Reuters and a dhimmi at Notre Dame would like us all to know that Buddhism and Hinduism are just as violent as Islam[.]

Notice, not “radical Islam” or Islamofascism.  Just plain “Islam” is violent in his mind.  And here is Johnson denouncing Bill Clinton for denouncing the cartoons as being similar to anti-Semitism:

Bill Clinton compares the Danish cartoons to “anti-Semitic prejudice,” at a conference in Doha, Qatar[.]  To put Clinton’s jaw-dropping analogy in perspective, compare for yourself.

Here are the cartoons from Jyllands-Posten.

And here is a page at the ADL site, dedicated to the continuous stream of outrageously sick, hate-drenched cartoons and articles published daily in the Arab media: Anti-Semitism in the Arab World.

One of these things is not like the other.

Really it just goes on and on.  He clearly supported the publishers of the cartoons.  And this is what he said about censoring South Park the first time:

South Park Censorship: A Matter of Fear.

Several readers emailed copies of Comedy Central’s form letter explaining their decision to censor South Park, and just as with Borders Books we see an honest, open acknowledgment that the root cause of their decision is fear of the Religion of Peace™[.]

And this is what he said the second time South Park was censored, after saying he understood on some level why Comedy Central was backing down:

Still sucks, though. And the threats will continue until a stiffer spine shows up somewhere in the media.

(emphasis added.)

So you would think that he would be overjoyed when a man had the basketball-sized gonads to have the Koran burned.  I mean, like Johnson, he feels the religion was inherently violent and therefore evil, so Johnson should love this hero of Freedom of Speech and Religion, right?  Right?

Oh, come on, you know I wouldn’t have gone to all this trouble to show you Charles Johnson being consistent, would I?  Here’s what he said:

Terry Jones’s bigoted stunt has now triggered violence in Kandahar, as hard-line imams and Taliban leaders exploit the Koran-burning to whip up hatred against Americans and other foreigners: Deadly Protests for Koran Burning Reach Kandahar.

I notice today that the usual right wing idiots are screaming that I blame Terry Jones for the violence, but not the Muslim protesters — and that’s nonsense.

The rioters who murdered UN workers and ran amok today in Kandahar are responsible for their actions. But Terry Jones, who was warned repeatedly by top US officials that violence would be the result, is also responsible for his actions. Jones is a pathetic coward who put the lives of others on the line in order to make a statement of pure bigotry. And more than a dozen are now dead because of it.

So its Jones’ fault, but he is not blaming Jones.  Glad he cleared that up.

Oh, and for extra comedy, dig this post: Why Did Mike Huckabee  Destroy All His Governorship Records?

Yeah, that is right, Charles Johnson is suggesting that a man who destroys records is less than trustworthy.  Hey, Chuckie, we agree!

Meanwhile, in my post Obama Starts to Make His Case I wrote this:

And then finally you get the guy in the ad saying he doesn’t agree with everything Obama has said and done, but he respects and trusts the man.  Which has to be the most maddening part of the ad.  Now, first, I didn’t see any part of the ad claiming that these were not paid actors, so I presume that this line was written by an someone else.  And even if he said this honestly and spontaneously, this is not raw video.  They edited this to choose the best messages.  And this is the best message, in their minds. Sure, you don’t agree with the guy, but just put that aside and trust the man.  Don’t think for yourself, or at least let your own opinions change how you will vote.  Just vote for the guy.

Does that even make sense in the context of reelection?  That, according to this man, there is no one the GOP could nominate that he would respect and trust more than the President, who might even agree with him more often?  It is an open pitch for slavish following, and unsuited for the leader of a free republic.

Well, there was apparently one person who thought that was a great argument.  Kevin Drum:

So what should I think about the [Libyan War]? If it had been my call, I wouldn’t have gone into Libya. But the reason I voted for Obama in 2008 is because I trust his judgment. And not in any merely abstract way, either: I mean that if he and I were in a room and disagreed about some issue on which I had any doubt at all, I’d literally trust his judgment over my own. I think he’s smarter than me, better informed, better able to understand the consequences of his actions, and more farsighted. I voted for him because I trust his judgment, and I still do.

For now, anyway. But I wouldn’t have intervened in Libya and he did. I sure hope his judgment really does turn out to have been better than mine.

Later on he amends that to say

“any doubt at all” was written in haste. It should have been something like “enough doubt to make me unsure of myself.”

As James Taranto points out

[t]his is not, mind you, an acknowledgment that the president, because he has access to pertinent information that is unknown to the public, is in a better position to judge than Drum is. It is, rather, an act of intellectual surrender–a declaration that Drum will defer to Obama because Obama is a superior man.

Oy, Kevin, you are really not getting this democracy thing, are you?

Finally, to give us a little fun to cleanse our palates, as I wrote that post yesterday “Don’t Burn the Bible, Or This Kitten Gets It!” I couldn’t shake the sense that there was something familiar in my absurd joke of threatening to kill a kitten if a person burned the bible.  And after sleeping on it I think I remember where I got the idea from… Blazing Saddles:

Of course even decades after this was made, this is not safe for work for being tasteless and racist in denouncing racism.  But the moment I have in mind starts at about 2:30.  And yes, its all still very, very funny, although I suspect the late, great Richard Pryor wrote the best jokes.  I remember one time watching a tribute to Pryor where they revealed the dirtiest joke left on the cutting room floor.  You might remember Madeline Kahn exclaiming in the dark “it’s true!  It’s true!” (Of course saying it more like “it’s twoo!”)  Now I won’t fill in the context, to keep this from being too explicit, but you probably remember what Khan was talking about in that famous line. But what you never heard was the response Pryor wrote (paraphrase): “Lady, please… you’re sucking on my elbow.”

We miss you, sir.

Update: Got my Chrises mixed up. Fixed.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

193 Responses to “Pinheads Everywhere on Koran Burning and Obama Worship”

  1. There’s no room left on the page for comments!

    As O’Reilly would say: today’s word is loquacious.

    Icy Texan (9b977e)

  2. Over at Powerline, they have found that 74% of their readers who voted, voted to leave Afghanistan. I think it is time and said so over a year ago.

    First the rules of engagement are killing our troops. Second, Pakistan is part of the enemy there. This is Vietnam with the sanctuaries all over again.

    Thirdly, every thing Obama touches turns to crap.

    Excellent reasons all.

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  3. Meanwhile, do I have to call Charles Johnson a pinhead? Well, okay, it is shooting fish in a barrel….

    Careful now. You meant that metaphorically, right?

    beer 'n pretzels (3d1d61)

  4. Here is something that disturbs me.

    Prosecutorial misconduct, even when it results in the wrongful imprisonment of an innocent man, never results in a violent, let alone murderous, reaction.

    Is the Quran really that much more important than the Constitution or justice?

    First the rules of engagement are killing our troops.

    Then we need to change those rules.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  5. I have to comment since it’s the greatest unknown punch line of all time. Sheriff Bart’s response to Lily Von Scthup’s “It’s Twue, it’s twue!” is:
    “I hate to dissappoint you ma’am, but your suckin’ on my arm.”

    Dan K. H. (87549a)

  6. Dan

    i have googled it and i can’t get a definitive wording on it, truthfully. my guess is it has become mutated in retelling.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  7. Cleavon Little, not Richard Pryor.

    Little played Bart, the new sheriff, in Blazing Saddles.

    Tom (1dd229)

  8. You have mistakenly attributed Christopher Hitchens’ writings to Chris Hedges! I was shocked when I first read something so eloquent and sensible and thought that it was written by Hedges, usually a king pinhead.

    JoeMoeTokyo (684d40)

  9. not richard pryor – cleavon little>>
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavon_Little

    nuge (8e2450)

  10. We should consider burning Korans as policy. Every time a rocket or mortar is launched from Gaza a prominent American will burn a Koran on tape. Every time a hostage is beheaded, two Korans. Every time a rape victim is executed, two Korans. And every time there are riots “because” someone burned a Koran we burn a Koran for each country participating. I think we can come up with more such rules.

    People will say I am not respecting the Islamic faith. I say not so. This policy respects the Koran and the depiction of the Prophet by treating them as very important.

    Islamacists like to hold our lives hostage and terrorize us by destroying them. I think we should hold the Koran and the depiction of the Prophet hostage in the same way. Again, the respect is evident. We would be equating their love of the Koran and the Prophet with our love of life. If we burn enough Korans and publish enough cartoons, I think it will become impossible to gin up a deadly riot anymore.

    Yours,
    Tom

    Tom DeGis (df9f1c)

  11. With all due respect, perhaps we should play being the decent American card.

    We know the enemy. That is what makes us decent – and Americans.

    Ag80 (98fa24)

  12. Oh crap, I just played into a troll game. Sorry.

    Ag80 (98fa24)

  13. imagine the UN compound being swarmed by Taliban nutcases… the UN workers pull out Korans and lighters and warn, “another step, and we’ll burn these!!”

    Now, what would happen, do you think?

    Do they attack for the threat of damaging qurans, do they hold off for fear of those poor little books getting damaged, or what?

    Ben M. (d902dd)

  14. Blazing Saddles was not the first. National Lampoon magazine had a cover photo of a dog with a gun aimed at it saying, “If you don’t buy this magazine, we’ll kill this dog.” nullhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/wsmonty/3634918376/

    Cedric (05ca2b)

  15. It always strikes me as ironic that Sunni Muslims are so worried about idolatry that they’ll go nuts over any image claimed to be a depiction of Mohammed, while at the same time making an idol of the mere printed image of his revelation, the Koran, as if the printed copy were the thing itself.

    It’s just another of the contradictions of the “fundamentalist” version of Islam, which is to Islam what Fred Phelps’ gospel is to Christianity, or the Broadway musical, “The Book of Mormon,” is to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All three are sacrilege and blasphemy, but if God wishes to kill all blasphemers, he is certainly able to do so without the assistance of excitable mobs.

    flataffect (b6610c)

  16. Hypothetical: Aaron has a neighor who is seriously jealous of his wife and has threatened violence against her in the past. Aaron, without any pressing necessity, tells the neighbor that his wife has been seen kissing another man. Question: Is Aaron completely free of responsibility when the neighbor kills his wife and/or her alleged lover?

    Less hypothetically–the Mohammend cartoons were intended to belittle Islam and increase hostility to Islam among non-Muslims. That in my book makes them of the same cloth as the anti-Semitic cartoons.

    And finally, a sort of technical poiont–it’s natural for us to think of “burning the Q’uran” as being merely a species of “burning the Bible”. However, the way Islamic theology runs, it’s more than that–desecrating the Q’uran would really be the same sort of offense to Muslims that desecrating a consecrated Host (Eucharistic wafer)would be for a Catholic. And Europeans did at one time riot and kill other people over alleged desecrations of the Host. But Europe eventually outgrew that behavior. We need to explain to Muslims that it’s time for them to outgrow that behavior as well.

    kishnevi (337084)

  17. How dare we offend mooslimes with a cartoon

    Cut that thinking out muslim apologist.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  18. How dare we offend mooslimes with a cartoon

    Cut that thinking out muslim apologist.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  19. while at the same time making an idol of the mere printed image of his revelation, the Koran, as if the printed copy were the thing itself.

    Classic Islamic theology gives a special status to the Q’uran–it’s the closest thing to the Divine in the physical world. Some European scholars use the term inlibration–God become book–as a parallel to the more usual concept of incarnation–God become human (as in the classic Christian view of Christ). So the contradiction you see doesn’t really exist.

    kishnevi (337084)

  20. Yes but let’s not offend mooslimes with a cartoon.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  21. 7. Cleavon Little, not Richard Pryor.
    Little played Bart, the new sheriff, in Blazing Saddles.
    Comment by Tom — 4/5/2011 @ 8:48 pm
    9. not richard pryor – cleavon little>>
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleavon_Little

    Comment by nuge — 4/5/2011 @ 8:52 pm

    To clear up some confusion going on hear – Mr. Little put on screen not just the best role of his life but one of the greatest in cinematic history. Mr. Pryor wrote most of the “black” jokes in the film

    5. I have to comment since it’s the greatest unknown punch line of all time. Sheriff Bart’s response to Lily Von Scthup’s “It’s Twue, it’s twue!” is:
    “I hate to dissappoint you ma’am, but your suckin’ on my arm.”

    Comment by Dan K. H. — 4/5/2011 @ 8:40 pm</blockquote

    This was the way I had heard it also.

    SaintGeorgeGentile (9820ae)

  22. __________________________________________

    We need to explain to Muslims that it’s time for them to outgrow that behavior as well.

    But then they’d be going against the history of their religion’s founder. Going against the life story of a person who brutally dispensed with those who merely questioned his credibility or mocked his name.

    For any follower of Islam to know the full background of its founder, and to still want to sign up to be a Muslim — and to claim he or she belongs to a moderate, non-fundamentalist wing of Islam — makes me think of folks who back in the 1930s might have given a nod to Hitler (while knowing all about the book “Mein Kampf”) and then proclaimed “but we adhere to a decent, humane form of Nazism!” IOW, there is something grotesque at the core of Islam, and no amount of sugar coating will change that fact.

    Mark (411533)

  23. Except many of the cartoons that caused the riots, were introduced by Abu Labaan, the Egyptian born
    Salafi, who traveled to Damascus and parts west

    narciso (b545d5)

  24. _______________________________________

    I think he’s smarter than me,

    Which means that you, Kevin Drum, when it comes to the part of intelligence that’s closely intertwined with common sense and basic logic, are mentally retar…uh, challenged.

    Mark (411533)

  25. btw, guys, i know richard pryor didn’t star in it. the story goes that pryor was going to, and cowrote much of the script. then the studio decided he was too controversial and brooks bought out writing credits.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  26. kishnevi,

    So, you are concerned we will hurt the feelings of people who were glad about 9/11?

    You know, 9/11, that event that most likely burned several Korans?

    Do suicide bombers check everyone within bombing distance for Korans?

    When muslims bomb mosques, how scrupulous are they to not destroy Korans?

    mockmook (f4fcfb)

  27. O’Reilly’s often been accused of having Tiller’s blood on his hands, so I’m really surprised he went there.

    MayBee (081489)

  28. TO: All
    RE: The O’Reilly Factor

    I gave up on O’Reilly when he called for the murder of Matt Drudge for outing him on some project that went south. He and the Islamists are of the same mindset.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [If you can’t beat them, kill them. — Losers]

    Chuck Pelto (73cfe4)

  29. the aforementioned moronic cleric from Gainesville

    Why call him ‘moronic’? Are the cartoonists ‘moronic’?

    j curtis (00244e)

  30. .
    And then some people just won’t behave. Smart as they are, educated and successful, they simply have to go there.

    It’s like you can’t control people, no matter how hard you try.

    You know, it’s the Judeo-Christian ethic that is engaging in the apologetic for moderate Islam. They see it everywhere, apparently. Wonder why all those “moderate” Muslims don’t carry their own water?

    Joan of Argghh! (d4f298)

  31. I agree with flataffect. It’s idolatry, even if you call it inlibration. And if Allah is omnipotent and all, he could handle things the old fashioned way, like with a bolt of lightning, or the ground opening up, or a good smite.

    Ernie G (bba2cc)

  32. Jones damn well knew what was going to happen when he burned that Koran – he wanted it to happen, and he hoped it would happen to “prove” his point.

    JEA (bdf3b5)

  33. Jones damn well knew what was going to happen when he burned that Koran – he wanted it to happen, and he hoped it would happen to “prove” his point.

    Yes… He knew that the Karzai would, 10 days after the event, whip up a crowd of Afghans who would then go and murder people…

    Seriously?

    I mean, I knew you were a f**king retard, but this is just a whole new level…

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  34. JEA

    > Jones damn well knew what was going to happen when he burned that Koran – he wanted it to happen, and he hoped it would happen to “prove” his point.

    Let’s see how you feel when we substitute a cause you care about.

    > The Civil Rights protesters who were beaten by people like Bull Connor damn well knew what was going to happen when they protested Jim Crow – they wanted it to happen, and they hoped it would happen to “prove” their point, by bringing the hate underlying segregation out into the open.

    And that is historical fact. The civil rights movement deliberately sought to make their opponents resort to violence as a political tactics. they weren’t shocked when they were beaten, when the fire hoses were turned on them. They were counting on it.

    But i am guessing you don’t feel the same way about that.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  35. The civil rights movement deliberately sought to make their opponents resort to violence as a political tactics.

    Which is exactly why the Unions are taking pains to help NPR with the Narrative of “the right of collective bargaining.” They too, want to force violence as the only resort. Right here. In the U.S. They want to destroy our “sacred cows” (there’s a term that’s religiously charged!)of meritocracy and they don’t care how many lives are ruined in the process. They would impose their ideology on others and force us to submit to their dominance with our paychecks.

    I mean, as long as we’re finding equivalency in our arguments. . .

    Joan of Argghh! (d4f298)

  36. Of course, there was an interesting detail to the
    Danish Cartoons, which have provoked reaction from
    Stockholm to Times Square; the Akkari/Laban dossier

    narciso (b545d5)

  37. Ramble much?

    Kman (5576bf)

  38. Aaron: They didn’t “buy out” Pryor’s writing credit in the sense of paying him off not to take a writing credit. Pryor is one of the credited writers on the film and his name is in the “Screenplay by” section of the movie poster.

    Joshua (2566e5)

  39. Kman

    I am a superhero. Captain Segue!

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  40. Meanwhile, in my post Obama Starts to Make His Case I wrote…..

    Finally, to give us a little fun to cleanse our palates, as I wrote…

    All due respect, but the segues need a little work. I got whiplash!!

    Kman (5576bf)

  41. kman

    are you under the impression that i respect you enough to care about your criticism?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  42. Comment by narciso — 4/6/2011 @ 6:24 am
    That doesn’t make the cartoons themselves less culpable; no matter what the reaction to them, their true nature remains–images meant to insult and denigrate Islam, and meant to incite further hostility to Islam. Nor does the fact that some people (some of them here) think that Islam deserves to be denigrated and insulted, and actively incite hostility, have any bearing on it.

    Do you think the people who were scandalized/insulted by that P*ss Christ should be blamed for the scandal, and not the artist who made the image.

    kishnevi (827a72)

  43. kish

    blaming the artist person for “scandal” is one thing. blaming them for violence is another.

    michael ejercito had an interesting metaphor. imagine a man said to taylor swift, make love to me or i will blow up a building. She says, “no” so he does. Then he says, “sleep with me, or more people will die.” she again says “no.” and he goes and does as he says.

    do you blame Taylor Swift for this? sane people say, “no.”

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  44. michael ejercito had an interesting metaphor. imagine a man said to taylor swift, make love to me or i will blow up a building. She says, “no” so he does. Then he says, “sleep with me, or more people will die.” she again says “no.” and he goes and does as he says.

    It’s a bad metaphor because the radical muslims were not compelling Terry Jones to burn the Koran. Taylor Swift, in the metaphor, is not the provocateur (or, as I would say, the one being a dick about it).

    Kman (5576bf)

  45. Kman

    they are compelling him to respect their religion. he doesn’t have to. they are compelling him to be silent when he wants to speak.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  46. they are compelling him to respect their religion. he doesn’t have to.

    LOL. How are they “compelling” him? You can’t compel people to stop being bigots — everyone knows that.

    Kman (5576bf)

  47. And by the way, anyone who burns books — they lose the moral high ground when it comes to the subject of “freedom of speech”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  48. they are compelling him to respect their religion. he doesn’t have to. they are compelling him to be silent when he wants to speak.

    Good on ya. Why, that sounds like . . . could it be? The burning, nasty sting of . . . FREEDOM! Yes!

    Simple concept. Hard to grasp, apparently.

    Joan of Argghh! (a642df)

  49. Kman

    Let me ask you a simple question.

    Did you condemn south park for airing the episodes with mohammed in them?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  50. Did you condemn south park for airing the episodes with mohammed in them?

    I wasn’t aware they were aired. But if they did — no, I don’t condemn Comedy Central for airing them.

    Kman (5576bf)

  51. 48.And by the way, anyone who burns books — they lose the moral high ground when it comes to the subject of “freedom of speech”.

    Hmm…let’s take that logic another step:

    Anyone who burns the flag loses the moral high ground when it comes to “patriotism”.

    Some chump (4c6c0c)

  52. Kman

    > [me] Did you condemn south park for airing the episodes with mohammed in them?

    > [you] I wasn’t aware they were aired. But if they did — no, I don’t condemn Comedy Central for airing them.

    Ah, so airing episodes depicting Mohammed in spite of threats of violence is okay.

    But burning a koran in spite of threats of violence is not. Gotcha.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  53. And by the way, anyone who burns books — they lose the moral high ground when it comes to the subject of “freedom of speech”.

    Orly? How so? Isn’t burning a flag or a book a form of speech? How is burning a book you disapprove of less expressive or less worthy than publishing one you approve of?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  54. Ah, so airing episodes depicting Mohammed in spite of threats of violence is okay.

    But burning a koran in spite of threats of violence is not. Gotcha.

    “In spite of threats of violence” isn’t a factor.

    Airing South Park episodes – even ones depicting Mohammad — is okay, period. Airing South Park episodes is what Comedy Central does (among other things).

    By contrast, for a pastor to hold a mock trial, condemn, and then burn a Koran is just being dickish for the sake of being dickish. More than that, it’s ANTI-free speech. It’s like the Nazis burning the Torah.

    Why is so hard for you to distinguish the two?

    Kman (5576bf)

  55. Comment by Aaron Worthing — 4/6/2011 @ 7:27 am

    No one (except perhaps Lindsey Graham) is compelling Jones to do anything: neither to speak nor to stay silent.

    Jones has the right to burn the Quran; but having the right to do something does not mean it’s a morally laudable thing. And to perform an action intending to incite a violent reaction is in most circumstances the reverse of morally laudable–and that applies to both the original Danish cartoons and Jones’ Quran burning.

    The civil rights marches were mentioned as a case where people performed an action intending to incite a violent reaction, but they differ radically from what’s going on here. For one thing, the civil rights marchers knew and expected that they would be the targets of the violence, not others: the violence was committed on them directly. For another, they were not attempting to denigrate other and incite hostility agains them–quite the reverse: they were stating, “you are humans, and we are humans, and all of us are equal”. In the universe of Jones and his fellow bigots, Muslims are inferior because they believe in Islam.

    kishnevi (827a72)

  56. mooslimes

    This type of slur is not helpful.

    carlitos (00428f)

  57. Get over it carlitos.

    So let me get this straight Kman burning the koran is like burning the torah…………oh wait you support burning torahs you Piece of hypocritical shit.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  58. According to assholes like Kman burning the torah is free speech but burning the koran should get you shot.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  59. Kman

    > “In spite of threats of violence” isn’t a factor.

    Bull. Let’s rewind and remember what you wrote.

    > But if you’re intentionally doing something provocative — like burning a Koran, or a flag, or a cross — don’t whine about your free speech when the response is the one you were trying to elicit and/or could foresee in the first place.

    The creators of south park didn’t accidentally draw mohammed. They did it on purpose. they did it intentinally. It was provocative. And they could FORESEE violence as a result. So by your logic you should condemn them, too.

    You’re a hypocrite, plain and simple.

    > Airing South Park episodes is what Comedy Central does

    Ah, so if this preacher burned Korans or books he doesn’t like generally all the time, that is okay? [in other words, apparently its the one-off nature of the protest that offends you.]

    > being dickish

    Yeah, while the creators of South Park never ever seek to offend anyone. And certainly didn’t seek to offend Muslims who didn’t want to see Mohammed as a cartoon.

    Seriously, are you from the Bizarro Earth?

    And that gives it away. You believe in freedom of expression only for people you don’t think are dicks. In short, YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

    > More than that, it’s ANTI-free speech.

    How exactly is one single person prevented from buying and reading the Koran by this pastor’s actions?

    Are you saying that criticism of speech is an infringement of free speech? Or just expressing your criticism of it by burning is?

    Do you think, consistent with the constitution, we could ban Koran burning?

    It is one thing, like the Nazis did, to take someone’s books from them and then burn it. But if the thing you are burning is your own property, it is your right to burn it (subject to content-neutral fire regulations).

    > Why is so hard for you to distinguish the two?

    Because unlike you I make no distinction between speech I like and speech I don’t like.

    [Added clarifying line. –Aaron]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  60. Did Lindsy Graham (per Ace) really state that we went out of our way during WWII to not insult Nazi sensiblilities?

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  61. Its the “dickish” exception to the First Amendment.

    Which Kman does not seem to realize applies mostly to his own favorite speech.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  62. Hmm…let’s take that logic another step:

    Anyone who burns the flag loses the moral high ground when it comes to “patriotism”.

    No, that one actually does make sense. If you burn your own country’s flag, you are not a patriot. And if you burn a Koran you are not a Moslem. But burning a Saudi flag doesn’t contradict American patriotism, and burning Mein Kampf or Das Kapital doesn’t contradict championship of freedom of speech.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  63. According to Herr Kman burning the torah is free speech but burning the koran should be a hate crime.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  64. kish

    > For another, they were not attempting to denigrate other and incite hostility agains them

    in other words, you think its different with the civil rights protesters because you like the cause better.

    > he civil rights marchers knew and expected that they would be the targets of the violence, not others: the violence was committed on them directly.

    Do you really think no one died or was beaten because of the civil rights protests but the protesters themselves? no collateral damage?

    But again, you would give up your freedom because someone threatens a third party’s life? And you think that is a virtue and not a weakness?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  65. I’m starting to think that “DohBiden” is some sort of faux-conservative, Archie Bunker random comment generator. Anyone else?

    carlitos (00428f)

  66. I’am not a faux-conservative schlusselbot.

    You do not get to decide who is conservative or not.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  67. schlusselbot

    OK then!

    carlitos (00428f)

  68. Exactly just like Debbie Schlussel if anyone offends the PC sensibilities of Carlitos then they cease being a conservative and become a far-right palin worshipper.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  69. You believe in freedom of expression only for people you don’t think are dicks. In short, YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

    Do you ever get tired of telling me what I believe and don’t? Put another way, do you ever get tired of being wrong?

    I totally reject the idea — floated by Republican Graham — to censor the speech of bigots like Jones. Totally reject it. He has a constitutional right to be a dick. And I’ve never said otherwise.

    But having the right to do X is not the same as saying that X is the right thing to do.

    Are you saying that criticism of speech is an infringement of free speech? Or just expressing your criticism of it by burning is?

    There’s a difference — even on a symbolic level — of criticizing speech and stifling of it. When you burn books, symbolically (if not literally) you are snuffing out the ideas contained within those books. That’s the way it has been historically.

    You can condemn something without taking away its voice. In fact, that’s exactly how approach Jones himself. I condemn what he did, but I disagree with Graham that “there oughta be a law….”

    Kman (5576bf)

  70. But I disagree with graham about banning koran burnings

    No you don’t and you have a lot of nerve talking about bigotry when you believe burning a torah because of what israel does is perfectly alright.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  71. No you don’t and you have a lot of nerve talking about bigotry when you believe burning a torah because of what israel does is perfectly alright.

    Dihbiden, you have reading comprehension problems. Where do I say, or even imply, that burning a torah is “perfectly alright”?

    Kman (5576bf)

  72. You have reading comprehension problems?

    Laughs out loud at the irony.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  73. Dude, do you think that using terms like “mooslime” is just a violation of “PC sensibilities?” Seriously?

    carlitos (00428f)

  74. Kudos to DohBiden for providing a cartoon for Kman to argue against. Have you guys checked the IP addresses?

    carlitos (00428f)

  75. Yes.

    carlitos (00428f)

  76. Kman

    > He has a constitutional right to be a dick. And I’ve never said otherwise.

    Nice dodge, except you don’t have a problem with private violence being used to suppress freedom of expression. And you say the man has blood on his hands, but don’t say that of south park.

    > and stifling of it.

    Except that a person remains just as free to read the Koran before and after the burning. So in what sense is it stifled. Oh right, its stifled “on a symbolic level.” But first, how is it even symbolically stifled? Are people going to think suddenly that the book is unlawful? There really is no way of interpreting his behavior as anything more than a very forceful condemnation of the book. And spin all you want, but condemnation is not stifling, or at least not in any way that matters a damn in principle.

    So in essence you are arguing that islam should be free of “stifling” criticism. Oh, unless it is south park doing it, right?

    By the way am I stifling islam if I point out it was founded by a pedophile?

    > When you burn books, symbolically (if not literally) you are snuffing out the ideas contained within those books.

    By that logic, books can never be destroyed, period. so if you throw your copy of Stephen King’s “It” into your office’s shred box, somehow you are acting against freedom of expression. Gotcha.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  77. Doh

    you are not banned as far as i know. are some of your comments not showing up?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  78. I would say someting about Kman but I’am just an archie bunker spewing racist.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  79. doh

    oh, i see the problem. don’t curse or it will get filtered.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  80. LOL

    carlitos (00428f)

  81. Yeah power trips are so LOL.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  82. doh

    i didn’t set up the filter. and its probably not a power trip on patrick’s part, either, just a desire to keep the blog reasonably clean so that people who don’t like that sort of thing will want to come here.

    its not the way i would run a blog, as evidenced by the fact that i didn’t run my own blog that way. but i respect patrick’s difference of opinion and i can understand. its the “more bees with honey” theory and it makes perfect sense.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  83. I was talking about Carlitos.

    I should have just said so.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  84. Whoever burns books will burn people.

    Shuck this fit. The first person to dare to translate the Bible from the Vulgate to English was burned by somebody who is now a saint.

    I know you don’t like Islam, Aaron, but what this clown in Florida is doing is contemptible.

    nk (db4a41)

  85. Contemptible but protected by free speech.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  86. carlitos has no power. He’s just a schmuck who comments here sometimes.

    carlitos (00428f)

  87. You called yourself a schmuck?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  88. Except that a person remains just as free to read the Koran before and after the burning.

    And Comedy Central remains just as free to air Soth Park episodes featuring Mohammed. Which, in fact, it DID (according to you). So how exactly did “private violence” take away freedom of speech?

    And spin all you want, but condemnation is not stifling, or at least not in any way that matters a damn in principle.

    Again, we’re not talking about merely condemning a book. He’s burning it. You are just dying to gloss over that fact.

    Aren’t you able to condemn idea/speech that you disagree with without suppressing them? (Thinking about your banning tactics….) Well, maybe not. Fair enough.

    I love how you are trying to make book-burning into an exercise of free speech, rather than seeing it for what it is and historically has always been — a suppression of free speech. Up-is-downism of the day.

    Kman (5576bf)

  89. So burning books suppresses free speech.

    Of course it does burning mein kampf is suppressing the nazi’s right to free speech.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  90. You called yourself a schmuck?

    Indeed. My use of a Yiddish term that once got Lenny Bruce arrested is an example of “non-PC” free speech.

    carlitos (00428f)

  91. “I’m starting to think that “DohBiden” is some sort of faux-conservative, Archie Bunker random comment generator. Anyone else?”

    – carlitos

    I’m just thinking he’s an idiot.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  92. > For another, they were not attempting to denigrate other and incite hostility agains them

    in other words, you think its different with the civil rights protesters because you like the cause better.

    No. The difference lies, among other things, in this: Jones is attacking both Islam and Muslims. The civil rights protests were attacking segregation, not the segregationists.

    Do you really think no one died or was beaten because of the civil rights protests but the protesters themselves? no collateral damage?


    By and large, no. For one thing, blacks had been suffering violence aimed at enforcing segregation for decades–since the start of slavery, to be realistic about it. For another, who in Kabul rioted over the waterhosing of the Selma marchers?

    But again, you would give up your freedom because someone threatens a third party’s life? And you think that is a virtue and not a weakness?

    I’m not giving up any freedom, and I’m not doing anything because someone else’s life is threatened. But unlike Jones, I think insulting and offending people–especially masses of people I don’t even know–is not a good thing.

    (And now I’m off to work. If I seem to be ignoring any further comments today, that’s why.)

    kishnevi (827a72)

  93. nk! Good to see you, man.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  94. No, you are missing the point, Abu Laban spent his days inciting violence in his adoptive land, like Omar Bakri, Abu Quatada, and the superstar Quradawi,
    the one welcomed in Tahrir Square, not long ago,

    Jones did a stupid thing, but the men with the loud speakers in Mazar, did a horrid thing, therein lies
    the story.

    narciso (b545d5)

  95. “I love how you are trying to make book-burning into an exercise of free speech, rather than seeing it for what it is and historically has always been — a suppression of free speech. Up-is-downism of the day.”

    – Kman

    That’s a disingenuous reading of this whole situation – this [self-serving b*stard of a] pastor isn’t trying to dump all the nation’s Korans into a big pile so that he can eliminate all trace of their existence; he’s burning a single copy, as a symbolic act. That’s speech, plain and simple. The Nazis burned books en masse for the functional purpose of eliminating access to them; that’s suppression of speech, because it isn’t symbolic – it’s practical.

    The thing that pisses me off most about Jones – and I don’t know why you’re not more hung up on this, Aaron – is that he’s exploiting a controversy for the sake of self-promotion. He’s not interested in furthering free speech; he just wants to get his name in lights again.

    Leviticus (b987b0)

  96. No. The difference lies, among other things, in this: Jones is attacking both Islam and Muslims. The civil rights protests were attacking segregation, not the segregationists.

    The boys in white sheets thought differently.

    But unlike Jones, I think insulting and offending people–especially masses of people I don’t even know–is not a good thing.

    It depends on who was being insulted.

    I am much in favor of insulting militant Islamist sand Nazi terrorists.

    But Jones went too far in making Islam and Muslims the target.

    Still, he has no blood on his hands, any more than these homosexualist fundamentalist protestors have the blood of Matthew Shepard on their hands.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  97. Yes and he has the right to do that.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  98. Nobody’s saying Jones isn’t a tarded hick.

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  99. burning mein kampf is suppressing the nazi’s right to free speech.

    How?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  100. I was just following Kman’s logic.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  101. Hey, Leviticus.

    nk (db4a41)

  102. this [self-serving b*stard of a] pastor isn’t trying to dump all the nation’s Korans into a big pile so that he can eliminate all trace of their existence; he’s burning a single copy, as a symbolic act.

    I grant you all that, Leviticus, but I still see it as a symbolic act of speech suppression. The fact that it had no practical effect in removing all Korans from existence doesn’t matter (even mass book burnings rarely achieve that goal).

    Good point about the self-promotional nature of Jones. His church was strapped for money last I heard. Doubt that’s true now.

    Ejercito:

    Still, he has no blood on his hands, any more than these homosexualist fundamentalist protestors have the blood of Matthew Shepard on their hands.

    You don’t think that’s overstating it a bit? I can draw a pretty direct line from Jones to the dead UN workers. Not so with the homophobic protesters to Matt Shepard.

    Kman (5576bf)

  103. I have a Koran, if I can find it from where my wife shelved it. 😉

    I want to learn, not burn.

    nk (db4a41)

  104. Kman

    > Which, in fact, it DID (according to you). So how exactly did “private violence” take away freedom of speech?

    First, ask Theo Van Gogh. Duh.

    And, I glossed over this, before but you misunderstood me. while they did air the episodes of South park with mohammed in them, they didn’t show mohammed himself. In the second part of the two parter aired last year, they also refused to name mohammed and even bleeped out sections condemning such censorship.

    So how did it stop them? because it did. revolultion islam specifically threatened that the creators of south park could end up like theo van gogh, and so comedy central did that debasing thing.

    > He’s burning it.

    So if I just have some old books, and I burn them, I am engaged in suppressing the press?

    > Thinking about your banning tactics

    Guess what? Patrick is not obligated to give you use of his “press.” If you want to express yourself, buy your own site (and indeed you did).

    > I love how you are trying to make book-burning into an exercise of free speech

    The supreme court said that burning a flag is. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2084618710761560217&q=texas+v.+johnson&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47

    I am sure you can explain to me why burning a book is different.

    And serial violations of Godwin’s law doesn’t do it.

    But I love how you conflate a violation of one’s property rights, with an exercise of it.

    Are you saying i am not allowed to shred an old copy of a stephen king novel because i don’t want to keep it or give it to someone else?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  105. Calling muslims homophobic might get you banned at Kturdman’s website.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  106. You don’t think that’s overstating it a bit? I can draw a pretty direct line from Jones to the dead UN workers. Not so with the homophobic protesters to Matt Shepard.

    You do not think that some people did not react to that disruption of that Catholic Mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral by bashing a gay or two?

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  107. So how did it stop them? because it did. revolultion islam specifically threatened that the creators of south park could end up like theo van gogh, and so comedy central did that debasing thing.

    Exactly. Comedy Central did that debasing thing.

    So if I just have some old books, and I burn them, I am engaged in suppressing the press?

    Are you saying i am not allowed to shred an old copy of a stephen king novel because i don’t want to keep it or give it to someone else?

    I know pretending to be stupid is a tactic of yours (you are pretending, right?), so knock it off. When you burn old books of yours in your backyard because you don’t want them anymore, that is considerably different than burning a religious text, after a mock trial, on tape, for the specific intentional purpose of provoking and insulting millions of people. Don’t play dumb — you know there is a difference.

    The supreme court said that burning a flag is [an expression of free speech]

    I’m not saying that burning a book isn’t free speech. I’m saying that book burning — historically as well as in reality — more connected with the suppression of free speech. And again, you know that as well. Book burners, historically, are not the champions of free speech, but the suppressors of it.

    Kman (5576bf)

  108. Kman

    > You don’t think that’s overstating it a bit? I can draw a pretty direct line from Jones to the dead UN workers. Not so with the homophobic protesters to Matt Shepard.

    Well, we can also draw a pretty direct line between Matthew Shepard’s own conduct and his murder. I mean he allegedly hit on those guys and in a fit of anger at a gay man hitting on them (psychoanalyze that however you will), those men murdered him. So i suppose you blame shepard for his death, too, right?

    Oh, except you have participated in tributes to the guy, so i am going out on a limb and guessing not.

    See, it all comes down to this, Kman. You’re a free speech hooker. you only pretend to believe in free speech when you like the message.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  109. The South Park boys, have learned their lessons, and they are busy reaming Mormons, in their latest
    production, just because they can, and the ‘let the
    Wookie win’ rule

    narciso (b545d5)

  110. Why isn’t Rev. Jones’ “street theater” accepted as legitimate, albeit perhaps crude, political speech?

    Yesterday, on his Sirius talk show, Andrew Wilkow hit it out of the park. This aint complicated folks.

    It is frightening when the media endorse the muslim view that a koran burning ISdifferent because the koranISwritten by God. Yikes!

    desertmick (e7f7fb)

  111. You do not think that some people did not react to that disruption of that Catholic Mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral by bashing a gay or two?

    I don’t know. I’m quite confident that’s not why Matt Shepard was bashed nine years later.

    On the other hand, I DO know and I CAN draw a direct line between Jones’ Koran-burning and the UN workers death.

    Kman (5576bf)

  112. Matt Shepard got murdered to death not bashed there’s a difference

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  113. Well, we can also draw a pretty direct line between Matthew Shepard’s own conduct and his murder. I mean he allegedly hit on those guys and in a fit of anger at a gay man hitting on them (psychoanalyze that however you will), those men murdered him. So i suppose you blame shepard for his death, too, right?

    Again, Aaron, you need to stop playing dumb. Even IF he hit on those two guys, Shepard was not trying to provoke his own beating and subsequent death.

    Jones, by contrast, was intentionally trying to provoke a violent response from certain sectors of the Islamic world.

    Put another way, Jones got what he wanted. Matthew Shepard, most assuredly, did not.

    Kman (5576bf)

  114. I know pretending to be stupid is a tactic of yours (you are pretending, right?), so knock it off.

    Ah, the irony.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  115. Right, that’s why they attacked the UN compound,

    narciso (b545d5)

  116. Kman

    > Comedy Central did that debasing thing.

    Under extortionary coercion, yes. Its amazing you don’t have a problem with that.

    > I know pretending to be stupid

    Its not pretending to be stupid, its pulling your statements apart. You asserted that the mere destruction of a book was censorship. But as I wanted I got you to abandon that silly claim as follows:

    > When you burn old books of yours in your backyard because you don’t want them anymore, that is considerably different than burning a religious text, after a mock trial, on tape, for the specific intentional purpose of provoking and insulting millions of people.

    So what you are saying is that instead of merely destroying text, he was doing so in a way that sends a specific message. And you don’t like that message. And that makes all the difference to you.

    Which is exactly what I have been saying about your arguments all along. You are selective in your support for free speech. Free speech for me but not for thee. Rev. Jones, you want him to give in to extortion. The creators of South Park? Not so much.

    It also seems to make a difference to you that it’s a religious book. Which seems to violative of the concept of freedom of religion. I am allowed to dislike islam. I am allowed to consider it no more than the crazed ranting of a dark age pedophile. I am allowed to assign it no more reverence than I do to book on recipes.

    > I’m not saying that burning a book isn’t free speech

    Actually that was exactly what you were saying. Deny it all you want, but it was.

    > Book burners, historically, are not the champions of free speech, but the suppressors of it.

    What did I tell you about Godwin’s law?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  117. It is frightening when the media endorse the muslim view that a koran burning IS different because the koran IS written by God. Yikes!

    Comment by desertmick — 4/6/2011 @ 10:18 am

    Great point.

    carlitos (00428f)

  118. Kman

    > Again, Aaron, you need to stop playing dumb. Even IF he hit on those two guys, Shepard was not trying to provoke his own beating and subsequent death.

    The only person being dumb here is you, as you evidently forgot what you said:

    > But if you’re intentionally doing something provocative — like burning a Koran, or a flag, or a cross — don’t whine about your free speech when the response is the one you were trying to elicit and/or could foresee in the first place.

    If Shepard hit on those guys, he wasn’t doing so accidentally. So he was doing something intentionally. And every gay man knows that the act is provocative and can foresee that it might result in violence. So it’s Shepard’s fault he died, according to your own logic.

    Its not playing dumb, kman. Its hoisting you on your own petard.

    Over and over again I have shown people who have done exactly what you alleged. The creators of South Park intentionally did the provocative act of drawing mohammed and yet you don’t condemn them or say blood is on their hands if any violence follows. Matthew Shepard allegedly did the provocative act of hitting on a guy, foreseeing that violence could result, and that’s not his fault, either. And you are right in those two case. the problem is that you don’t apply that principle consistently to speech you don’t like. And thus you would substitute the censorship by private extortion, rather than government coercion—not neutrally but based on what you think of the message.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  119. It would be amazing if a gay guy beat the crap out of another gay guy for voting for Palin.

    What would Kturd say then?

    DohBiden (984d23)

  120. Kman, maybe you should restate this ‘blame the provocative protestor’ maxim.

    Maybe there’s a way to formulate your idea that can be applied honestly without you freaking out that nobody understands you or is honest.

    My tip is that you need to add into your maxim that you only blame people who provoke an expectable reaction if you don’t like those people or their speech. Ordinarily, you blame the person who reacted in an immoral manner, instead of the victim, but you waive that for victims or provocative protestors you dislike.

    The reason you refuse to make this clear is that it shows you are simply empty of core principles like a value for free speech and protest, and rather just flip flopping on principles based on whether you agree with someone.

    The reason this is so sloppy and simple is probably some combination of the fact you made this up, ad hoc, just to be disagreeable and the fact you’re really not very intelligent.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  121. > Comedy Central did that debasing thing.

    Under extortionary coercion, yes.

    Oh, please. Hype the threat, why don’t you? “Extortionary coercion”? Oooga booga.

    Comedy Central erred on the side of safety, out of an abundance of caution. (A less gratuitous way to say that is that they wimped out, although I prefer the other way.) But let’s not pretend they were surrounded by Islamic radicals outside their offices, and had no choice.

    Its not pretending to be stupid, its pulling your statements apart. You asserted that the mere destruction of a book was censorship.

    No, AW. I never asserted that; you (apparently) spun that in your head. Obviously, there’s a difference between the “mere” burning books in your backyard because you don’t them anymore, and the public burning of books because you condemn what those books say.

    Diversion fail, on your part.

    Which is exactly what I have been saying about your arguments all along. You are selective in your support for free speech. Free speech for me but not for thee. Rev. Jones, you want him to give in to extortion. The creators of South Park? Not so much.

    For the ???th time now, I support Jones’ free speech rights. I’ve said so many times now. You want to fight with someone else about that, fine. But I’ve never said anything else.

    As I have said before, this is about the right thing to do, not what one has a right to do.

    I am allowed to dislike islam. I am allowed to consider it no more than the crazed ranting of a dark age pedophile. I am allowed to assign it no more reverence than I do to book on recipes.

    Absolutely. You have those rights, and more! You even have the right, for example, to be a bigot, to be a hater, Aaron. I’ve never said otherwise.

    I just don’t think you should get medals on your chest for that, and neither should Jones.

    > Book burners, historically, are not the champions of free speech, but the suppressors of it.

    What did I tell you about Godwin’s law?

    What does book burning have to do with Godwin’s Law? You think Nazis the only ones? Or even the first?

    Kman (5576bf)

  122. Kman, you seem very interested in your maxim of blame.

    Perhaps this would make a great blog post on your blog, and then I could comment on it to explain why I disagree with it? Are you still refusing to let members of this echo chamber comment on your blog? What’s the URL?

    Dustin (c16eca)

  123. 48.And by the way, anyone who burns books — they lose the moral high ground when it comes to the subject of “freedom of speech”.

    Comment by Kman — 4/6/2011 @ 7:33 am

    Not really, it’s actually a perfectly fine form of protest. It says what you think of the contents of the books, not what you think of books in general. If Patterico bans a poster, it’s because of the speech of the poster. He doesn’t have a problem with words in general.

    It’s not a good idea to glorify speech if it appears in book form. It also might be a good idea to ban a book for the betterment of society in the same way it might be a good idea to ban a poster for the betterment of a website.

    j curtis (669f72)

  124. Remove your head from Charles Johnson’s butt Kturdman.

    Burning flag-Good.

    Burning koran-Bad and you deserve to die.

    Eff you Kturdman.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  125. j curtis is right.

    Sanctifying books because Nazis burn them is a convenient measure to explain tolerance to children, but the fact is that burning a book is a form of speech. The person who condemns book burning protests, and then claims they are the authority on who values freedom of expression (kman, for example) is either not a deep thinker, or picking favorite expressions to protect more than others.

    When you start picking and choosing which speech gets more protection, you are directly opposing freedom of speech as a general concept.

    I do think nk’s right that the best reaction to the Quran is to read it and then understand it well enough to discuss it critically. But I also think burning a Quran today is a special symbol of defiance against those who would murder people. The only Quran I have is a precious heirloom, so it’s not going to be burnt, but the concept makes sense without making me a Nazi.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  126. Kman

    > Hype the threat, why don’t you? “Extortionary coercion”?

    The first time they did it, they explicitly stated it was because of fear of violence. What else do you call it?

    > Comedy Central erred on the side of safety, out of an abundance of caution.

    Yes, in other words, they gave in to extortion.

    > But let’s not pretend…

    Ah, let’s add that to another in your list of examples where you don’t understand the law. Extortion doesn’t have to be “your office is surrounded.” Extortion can be a wiseguy saying, “you better pay your protection money or something bad could happen to your family. The brakes on your car could give out. Or you might run into a mugger in a dark alley. Things can go wrong, so you need my protection.” Seriously, i am starting to get the feeling that you are literally below the base level of competency required by your profession.

    > [me] You asserted that the mere destruction of a book was censorship.
    > [you] No, AW. I never asserted that;

    Except you did:

    > When you burn books, symbolically (if not literally) you are snuffing out the ideas contained within those books.

    Moving on:

    > I support Jones’ free speech rights.

    But not his right to be free of extortion that would silence him because you really don’t like his message.

    > You even have the right, for example, to be a bigot

    What on earth is bigoted about that? the man was in the dark ages. He was a pedophile. And whether he was divinely inspired or ranting is a reasonable point of disagreement. Since you are not muslim I suspect you at least don’t think it’s the word of God.

    > I just don’t think you should get medals on your chest for that, and neither should Jones.

    talk about putting words in my mouth. i didn’t say jones should get a medal. i said jones bore no responsibility for those murders. and you disagreed and expressed the view that censorship by private extortion is not a problem in your book.

    > What does book burning have to do with Godwin’s Law?

    Don’t play dumb. You invoked the Nazis yourself on this point.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  127. Speaking the truth about Mohammed Is bigotry apparently.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  128. dustin

    > without making me a Nazi.

    NAZI! denounced!

    i will say that i have always sympathized with the idea of a city passing laws that limit burning period. its kind of encapsulated in a joke leno once told (paraphrase) “so you can’t burn a pile of leaves, but a pile of flags…?”

    So if a city had a very strict rule that said that you can’t burn anything, period, except under very limited and content-neutral situations, i don’t consider that a violation of free speech. when it comes to conduct, you can’t just do whatever you want because you call it expressive. i can’t, for instance, expressively stab strangers.

    Which ironically is where the discussion started with me when this first cropped up. originally the city he was in said he needed a permit to burn the koran and none would be forthcoming. and i pointed out that it appeared to be in the same county as the florida gators football team, which was famous for holding bonfires. so i got into it over at volokh on the issue of whether they were neutrally applying this permitting rule and saying there was definitely a question there that needed to be resolved.

    but if they wouldn’t even allow a friday night football bonfire, then they were on safe ground, imho.

    i mean fire is a unique thing in that it very often spreads, etc. in the case of burning a flag, most flag manufacturers use flame retardant material (probably for exactly this reason), so when a guy burns a flag he usually has to dip it in kerosene or something like that. which means now you are playing with flammable liquids, too. fire is inherently dangerous and i think a city can ban burning as a mere expression, if the law is written properly.

    [btw, don’t quote me on the “flame retardant material” point. i think Patrick’s filters get sprung at any use of the word “retard” and thus your comment might disappear.]

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  129. The first time they did it, they explicitly stated it was because of fear of violence.

    Right. Comedy Central’s fear. They own it.

    > [me] You asserted that the mere destruction of a book was censorship.
    > [you] No, AW. I never asserted that;

    Except you did:

    > When you burn books, symbolically (if not literally) you are snuffing out the ideas contained within those books.

    Yup, my fault. I forgot that I have to spell things out in literal terms for you, and I can’t credit you with a modicum of intelligence. By the way, “books” encompasses magazines. I didn’t specifically say so before — I assumed you would figure that out. But you’ve reminded me that you aren’t capable of that.

    i didn’t say jones should get a medal. i said jones bore no responsibility for those murders.

    And I don’t say he’s ultimately responsible either. But I think the phrase “blood on his hands” is appropriate. After all, but for his actions, there wouldn’t be nine people dead. And what’s more, he KNEW that death would be a consequence of his Koran burning.

    So why are you defending him so vigorously?

    Kman (5576bf)

  130. So why are you defending his free speech rights so vigorously.

    FIFY.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  131. Kman

    > Comedy Central’s fear.

    Following the threats of islamofascists. You forgot that part.

    > Yup, my fault

    For forgetting your own words? I admit it is hard to keep track of one’s own BS which is why I don’t BS people myself.

    > And I don’t say he’s ultimately responsible either. But I think the phrase “blood on his hands” is appropriate

    You’re not blaming him, you are just saying there is blood on his hands? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

    > After all, but for his actions, there wouldn’t be nine people dead.

    I can make a “but for” causation argument for just about anything. For instance, suppose someone reads your comments and thinks you are a tool. They get angry and say something nasty to his wife. The wife gets angry back and refuses to have sex after that. In his sexual frustration, the man goes and rapes a teenager and then kills her to cover the crime. So… but for your idiotic comments on this blog that teenager wouldn’t have been raped and murdered. But would you have blood on your hands?

    Of course not. But that is the same logic you just applied.

    And if you are going to invoke proximate causation, a rational limitation on that “butterfly effect” theory of causation, then you have to point to something he did wrong and it has to be wrong because it tends to cause what happened to happen. Take one classic example that every competent lawyer should know about. So I expect you to be new to this one. A man is speeding. As he sped along a tree branch fell and hit the top of his car. Now it is true he was doing something wrong—speeding. And it is true that if he was not going exactly that fast he wouldn’t have been in that spot at that moment. So in that same butterfly effect sense his speeding caused his car to be hit by that tree. But in law his speeding is not the proximate cause of the tree branch falling on his car, because speeding doesn’t tend to cause tree branches to fall on the roof of your car.

    It is not enough to say that wrongdoing was in the air.

    You might disagree with Pastor Jones message. You might also think he is a rude sonofabitch for burning that Koran. Feel free and I respect that belief. But it is utterly incorrect to say, “I should avoid being rude to people because they might cut someone’s head off.” And that is where you go wrong, you shallow, incompetent lawyer.

    And that is exactly why your approach is a surrender to this extortion.

    > So why are you defending him so vigorously?

    Isn’t that a revealing comment? You can’t separate defending the principle of free speech from the person who benefits. I am not defending him. I am defending his freedom and correct moral principles. He only spoke. He bears no more responsibility for the overreaction of the Islamic nutjobs than the creators of south park would if their actions “inspired violence.” Or if Matthew Shepard inspired the violence he faced. I am consistent, while you engage in the fallacy of invalid special pleading.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  132. Who was it that said “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”?

    Ah, must have been some neocon.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  133. That riot in Pakistan, after the false reports of
    Koran flushing, whose fault was that, if you say
    the mob, you win a copy of the home game.

    narciso (b545d5)

  134. narc

    by kman logic, it would have to be newsweek’s fault right?

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  135. If we held the populations of the third world, and those who had come from the third world, to some kind of standards of civilized behavior, and were sufficiently unpleasant to those who did not meet those standards, we would not have these problems.

    Of course certain voices on the Left will loudly demand to know why WE get to decide what is civilized behavior. To that I reply that when one culture is debating whether to allow homosexuals to marry and another is debating how they should be put to death, I have no difficulty saying that the former is preferable to the latter.

    Whatever else can be said about the Iraq War under Bush, it did show that life can become significantly unpleasant if you annoy America enough. Pity nobody seems to be paying attention to the lesson. Let’s hope we can get it across without turning the whole area into a large sheet of glass.

    C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968)

  136. You’re not blaming him, you are just saying there is blood on his hands? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

    I know. Too nuanced for you.

    I can make a “but for” causation argument for just about anything.

    No doubt. And while you blather on about tree branches falling even though a guy is speeding yadda yadda yadda…. (snooze)….

    …the fact remains — General Petraeus (among others) told Jones outright: if you burn this Koran, you will endanger the lives of coalition forces. The cause/effect relationship was pointed out — specifically and in no uncertain terms — to Jones. He was TOLD what would happen, he DID it anyway.

    Put that into your butterfly effect analysis and smoke it, son.

    Did he have a right to do it? That’s not even a question worthy of debate. Of course he did.

    Was it the right thing to do? Was he asserting correct moral principles by burning a religious book sacred to millions of peace-loving Muslims (as well as thousands of extremists)? No. He was being a self-aggrandizing prick. And I’m ashamed that he is an American.

    Kman (5576bf)

  137. But burning the flag is ok.

    And it is ironic that you accuse someone of being a self-aggrandizing prick you hypocritical fascist pig.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  138. Was he asserting correct moral principles by burning a religious book sacred to millions of peace-loving Muslims (as well as thousands of extremists)?

    What moral principle are you referring to? This is the most complicated part of the argument, and you brush over it because you’re so damn lazy intellectually.

    In the other thread, you’re glad Beck’s program is being dropped, but plenty of peace loving Muslims and other faithful value his program.

    When you try to explain your moral principles, you wind up coming up with something horrible and oppressive. You want to reverse engineer them from a result where you can piss all over those you disagree with while whining about the oppression of those you agree with. This is because you are morally empty.

    A protester can show defiance by burning something sacred to others. That can be a beautiful statement in support of feminism or human rights or anger at child rape like the Quran’s author committed. The fact people disagree about the Quran, some loathing it and some revering it, doesn’t mean one has to treat it with special politically correct love.

    What’s interesting is that you fail to discuss Jones’s own comments when explaining his morality. I think that’s because you were too lazy to read them. But this isn’t about Jones so much as the general possibility of offending Muslims while being morally upright in your defiant protest.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  139. You mentioned “But the moment I have in mind starts at about 2:30.” You can start embedded youtube video by putting &start=xx at the end of the two youtube urls in the html for the object (where xx is in seconds). Thus to start your vid at 2:30 (150 seconds) you’d use:

    BR (af16fa)

  140. My last post deleted the HTML, so here’s one of the the links you have to modifiy with the appended &start=xx:

    http://www.youtube.com/v/upvZdVK913I?version=3&start=150

    BR (af16fa)

  141. Kman

    > Too nuanced for you.

    No, Kman, you literally don’t know what the phrase means. It means to be responsible for it.

    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/have-sb-s-blood-on-your-hands

    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/have+blood+on+hands

    http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/blood

    as usual your aggressive ignorance is on display.

    > General Petraeus (among others) told Jones outright: if you burn this Koran, you will endanger the lives of coalition forces.

    Again, by your own logic you would condemn matt stone, trey parker, and matthew shepard.

    I admit I am continually amazed that you lack even the basic sense of self-awareness to realize that defending the right to be a jerk is a matter of self-preservation. Do you not understand that in your eyes, you’re a much bigger @$$ than Pastor Jones?

    > Did he have a right to do it? That’s not even a question worthy of debate. Of course he did.

    But you have no problem preventing him from doing it by extortion. So your concept of a “right” is anemic indeed.

    > And I’m ashamed that he is an American.

    I am more ashamed of you, because you don’t get this whole freedom thing. “Was he asserting correct moral principles?” Get this through your head you brown-shirt apologist. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE RIGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.

    Dustin

    > I think that’s because you were too lazy to read them.

    I truly think laziness explains most of what kman says and thinks. He doesn’t think through his principles. Indeed, he doesn’t think enough to have principles.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  142. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE RIGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.

    It’s as simple as that, Aaron.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  143. Br

    thanks. i will give that a try in the future.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  144. Dustin

    sounds simple, but too many on the left has been playing this game of “i want to pick and choose the speakers or messages i like”

    citizen’s united was a good case of that. GE could speak freely through nbc, according to the left. but LG couldn’t because they don’t own a media company. michael moore can make fahrenheit 9-11, but citizens united can’t make hillary the movie.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  145. No, Kman, you literally don’t know what the phrase means. It means to be responsible for it.

    I was using the phrase “blood on his hands” in the same sense that O’Reilly used it. Watch your own video if you need further clarification.

    That said, Jones is “responsible” in the causational sense. But he manages to escape sole moral culpability.

    But you have no problem preventing him from doing it by extortion.

    “Extortion” doesn’t enter into it when we’re talking about what Jones did. Burning a Koran is a dick thing to do regardless of whether or not he was threatened.

    Get this through your head you brown-shirt apologist. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE RIGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.

    Can I take this as an admission from you (finally) that Jones was not right in what he did? Because only a few comments ago, you were defending Jones’ “correct moral principles”.

    Kman (5576bf)

  146. Dude can we finally get Kman to admit he is being payed off by Chuckles the Fat bike wearing moobotron.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  147. Kman

    > in the same sense that O’Reilly used it.

    Yes, and O’Reilly BLAMED JONES, TOO. idiot.

    > But he manages to escape sole moral culpability.

    He has no moral culpability, you brown-shirt apologist.

    > “Extortion” doesn’t enter into it when we’re talking about what Jones did.

    When you say he should do it BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL DIE, yes, extortion does enter into it.

    > Can I take this as an admission

    No, it only means I don’t care whether he was right or wrong. Good reading comprehension, there.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  148. To be fair, Dohbiden, we’re all taking that Crazy GOP money from Charles Johnson. It’s the great conspiracy of our age.

    Charles Johnson is too cowardly to permit dissent, much like Kman, but Charles usually is open in his insults. Kman is creepy in how he puts so many subtle references to Aaron in his comments. Charles is proud of his nutcase comments. Kman is very aware that his comments here are often shameful.

    I don’t respect either of them, but Kman’s pathetic in comparison.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  149. doh

    no, there is no evidence that he even likes charles on any level.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  150. kman

    And i did not say his moral principles were correct. i said i was defending correct moral principles. it is incorrect, morally, to blame anyone’s mere words for someone else’s actions.

    which means as usual you are being an immoral moron.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  151. Yes, and O’Reilly BLAMED JONES, TOO. idiot.

    O’Reilly spread the culpability around, yes. As do I.

    No, it only means I don’t care whether he was right or wrong…

    So you don’t have an opinion on whether Jones was right or wrong? Am I understanding you correctly?

    And along those lines, what did you mean when you wrote that you were defending Jones’ “correct moral principles”? What were those “moral principles”, and why were they “correct”?

    Kman (5576bf)

  152. Kman cuts out Aaron’s paragraph very aggressively.

    He denies that Aaron was not discussing whether Jones was right or wrong!

    You can’t separate defending the principle of free speech from the person who benefits. I am not defending him. I am defending his freedom and correct moral principles. He only spoke. He bears no more responsibility for the overreaction of the Islamic nutjobs than the creators of south park would if their actions “inspired violence.”

    Wow, Kman. You’re such a joke! Aaron is defending a moral principle of allowing people to speak freely, without blaming them for the evils of others, and this freedom of speech being correct whether someone is right or wrong.

    You already know that’s what Aaron meant. I can tell by how surgically you excluded the rest of his paragraph.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  153. What an entrepreneurial opportunity to drive the Islamists nuts. Imagine a Koran burning app for your smart phone. Perhaps a Koran burning screen saver for your laptop or desktop. They could be placed next to the pork rind ads. Burn a Koran? I’ve got an app for that!

    ‘Bout time for them to learn a little tolerance. If not, Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Time to make ’em mad. Cheers –

    agimarc (324b03)

  154. Missed this:

    i said i was defending correct moral principles. it is incorrect, morally, to blame anyone’s mere words for someone else’s actions.

    Well, that may be true, but we’re not talking about “mere words” in the case of Pastor Jones. And you know that.

    So what “correct moral principles” were you defending?

    Kman (5576bf)

  155. I do have to wonder: what’s the greater offense to Allah, assuming (which I do not) Islam is true.

    A nonbeliever burning the Quran, or a believer using schizophrenics and children with down’s syndrome to murder civilians?

    Islam expects more propriety out of believers, so the outrage from those killing the UN workers should be directed… at themselves for being killers.

    Once we get to that point, it’s clear they are just outraged and murderous, and burning a Quran didn’t even instigate that problem. The logic of blame is contrary to freedom, but it’s also wrong on the simple facts.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  156. Kman

    So you said this:

    > And I don’t say he’s ultimately responsible either. But I think the phrase “blood on his hands” is appropriate

    And I mocked you saying:

    > You’re not blaming him, you are just saying there is blood on his hands? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

    And you denied that. well, here we are now:

    > [me] Yes, and O’Reilly BLAMED JONES, TOO. idiot.

    > [you] O’Reilly spread the culpability around, yes. As do I.

    So you do blame him. but you are too small to admit that this is what you said and apologize.

    > So you don’t have an opinion on whether Jones was right or wrong?

    I haven’t cared enough to form an opinion and have generally conceded the worst that was said about it, because its not about that. I don’t care if it was part of a klan rally, this was his right.

    > what did you mean when you wrote that you were defending Jones’ “correct moral principles”?

    What dustin said. I don’t even believe you were genuinely confused on this point.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  157. Kman

    > Well, that may be true, but we’re not talking about “mere words” in the case of Pastor Jones.

    Fair enough. but the conduct was itself harmless and thus was morally equivalent to mere words.

    But besides, according to your professed principles, mere words is enough to blame a person for violence. if some muslim reads me calling mohammed a pedophile and goes and kills a few UN workers, i am in your principles as culpable as Jones.

    Btw, funny thing, btw. You have said to me that you believe that a person should be free to do whatever they want so long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

    But Jones didn’t hurt anyone else. unless you mean either 1) the offense those muslims feel counts or 2) the violence they engage in Jones’ fault.

    But you said that in the context of Lawrence v. texas, the case that declared a constitutional right to gay sex. well, muslims are offended by our relatively gay-friendly culture. And that kind of offense is a large part of why they hate and attack us. so by your logic, lawrence was wrongly decided, right?

    now of course it was wrongly decided because it invented a right out of thin air, but consider that example 1532 of your complete hypocrisy on lawrence.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  158. dustin

    well, i recall during the cartoon controversy that a few muslims scholars said that it came from a passage banning idoltry. but, they said, it only applied to muslims. so for a christian to draw mohammed is not a sin, or so they interpreted their book. i am not sure where the rule against burning the koran comes from, although some have said its because supposedly God dictated the koran therefore every copy is holy. also technically the koran is not truely the koran, but a pretty good translation from the language of God. the true koran can only be read in heaven. which has a certain logic to it, i will grant them.

    in the end i won’t even try to guess what the correct interpretation of their faith is. its their faith and thus their decision. but i won’t let them use their faith as an excuse to push me or anyone else around.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  159. but the conduct was itself harmless and thus was morally equivalent to mere words.

    Well, we’re going to have to STRONGLY disagree on that one.

    But Jones didn’t hurt anyone else. unless you mean either 1) the offense those muslims feel counts or 2) the violence they engage in Jones’ fault.

    It’s not a perfect analogy, but that’s a little like the bartender saying “I didn’t hurt anyone; I was just pouring drinks to the guy I knew would be driving. You want to blame someone — blame HIM.”

    Well, as I’ve said before, I DO blame the “offended Muslims” for the deaths caused by Jones’ Koran burning. And I agree that, even if they were offended by Jones, it doesn’t not justify murder.

    But that still doesn’t absolve Jones of some culpability, anymore than it does the bartender. The bartender who pours alcohol down the guy of someone he knows will be driving bears some moral culpability. By the same token, Jones knew (again, told by General Petraeus) of the consequences of burning a Koran. But he acted dickish anyway.

    But you said that in the context of Lawrence v. texas, the case that declared a constitutional right to gay sex. well, muslims are offended by our relatively gay-friendly culture. And that kind of offense is a large part of why they hate and attack us. so by your logic, lawrence was wrongly decided, right?

    The difference being that people don’t have gay sex for the purpose of tweaking Muslims. Again, it’s the intentional provocation, knowing the consequences, that make Jones a doucheb*g.

    Kman (5576bf)

  160. Kman

    > but that’s a little like the bartender

    Yeah, it’s a sucky analogy. The bartender is making a person impaired. The fact that the patron was primarily responsible for doing it to himself is beside the point.

    > The difference being that people don’t have gay sex for the purpose of tweaking Muslims.

    You keep drawing a distinction that you yourself didn’t draw. To quote your words again:

    > But if you’re intentionally doing something provocative — like burning a Koran, or a flag, or a cross — don’t whine about your free speech when the response is the one you were trying to elicit and/or could foresee in the first place.

    So it fits perfectly. I mean assuming they are accidentally being gay, they are intentionally engaging in the behavior. It is provocative. I mean seriously, could you look at RuPaul and describe her/him as anything but intentionally provocative? And so if they say, “if America doesn’t stop being gay-friendly, we are going to kill random westerners” then the metaphor is complete. The next time we are attacked, it’s “teh gheys” to blame. You have managed to become Pat Robertson, the first man to earn the term idiotarian.

    Which is a perfect example of why I don’t understand why the left is so willing to side with the terrorists, or to rationalize or excuse their behavior. The left has more to lose than the right in this war.

    But maybe it comes down to this. the conservatives may have less to lose in a world dictated by islamofascists. But the things they lose they care about more.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  161. Kman

    > Good solution.

    i’ll make a deal with you. i’ll consent to have them hand over terry jones to the taliban, if you are handed over at the same time along with pictures of you on stage cross dressing.

    How do you like that solution?

    Hahahahaha, giving in to brown shirts is hilarious!

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  162. But if you’re intentionally doing something provocative — like burning a Koran, or a flag, or a cross — don’t whine about your free speech when the response is the one you were trying to elicit and/or could foresee in the first place.

    Kman, do you actually agree to this?

    Sure sounds like you don’t, but wanted to say something… anything.. that would insult Aaron as a whiner.

    You seem to be unable to just admit you were mistaken. Good grief.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  163. So in other words since Jones has not spat and sat the flag on fire he is a d*schebag we get it you intolerant trash.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  164. Dustin

    i drive people up the wall on cross examination. 🙂 and more importantly, make them look bad.

    I will credit the possibility that kman meant it when he said it, but didn’t really think it through. and now he doesn’t want to admit that i showed that his principle was wrong, that all the implications of it get pretty ugly and gored his favorite sacred cows. i think if he could go back in time, knowing what he knows now, and be able to change what he said without us knowing he changed what he said, he just might do it. In other words, it ain’t dishonesty so much as his inability to swallow his pride and admit he was wrong.

    its like that time he was caught commenting on that iowa case without reading it and then immediately after admitting he didn’t read it, tried to say he did.

    That’s why you get all the special pleading. Because he knows he is wrong. but he can’t say MLK, civil rights marchers, matthew shepard, and gay people generally are morally culpable for violence they do in fact inspire. so he has to twist himself into a pretzel to pretend there are meaningful distinctions between creating an episode of south park with mohammed in it and burning a koran, by pretending (snort) that the guys who make south park don’t intend to offend anyone.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  165. I very rarely watch O’Reilley, so I missed this…but I have to say that I think Terry Jones is a publicity hound who really does not care one way or the other what happens in places like Afghanistan. That does not mean that he does not have the right to freely express his views. That does not mean that he is responsible for the killings, the people who committed the crimes are responsible for the killings…but if we have to say that then it also worth noting that Afghanistan is the only country in the Muslim world that has seen these kinds of riots over this issue…and not all Afghans were part of the mayhem either. Therefore if we only blame the people who took part in the crimes themselves..that means that literally millions of Muslims had nothing to do with this.

    I think Jones was irresponsible. I also think that like Reverend Phelps and the wikileaks guy Assange, Jones hid behind some self serving platitudes to justify his actions. We did not learn anything new about the enemy here. His actions did not convert or shame anyone either. In fact even Muslims who do not take part in terrorism are not going to give you a pat on the back for burning a Koran.

    It was a stupid thing to do and considering the fact that we have not only military people in Afghanistan, but diplomatic people as well I think is reprehensible to make their jobs more dangerous and difficult than they have to be.

    Terrye (d6aeed)

  166. But the only difference is Julian Arsemange was once upon a time defended by the same lefties calling out Terry Jones.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  167. And O’Reilley made a comment about how long we can try to save the Afghan people from themselves…I think people have forgotten that we did not go to Afghanistan to save the Afghan people from themselves, we went there because the Taliban openly gave sanctuary to AlQaida. If the attacks of 911 had not happened, we would not give 2 figs about the Afghan people.

    Terrye (d6aeed)

  168. Now he is thrown under the ultralefts bus.

    DohBiden (984d23)

  169. “The difference being that people don’t have gay sex for the purpose of tweaking Muslims. Again, it’s the intentional provocation, knowing the consequences, that make Jones a doucheb*g.”

    Kman – Please provide a comprehensive list of actions and words which provoke Muslims so that those who wish can self-censor and avoid violence from that backward cult/religion of hate.

    Also please provide a comprehensive list of book titles it is OK to burn and a similar comprehensive list of those it is not OK to burn, since you make a distinction between the two. If you do not have the list, please direct me to where I can find it.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  170. Was Rosa Parks intentionally drawing fire from racists when she refused to give up her seat? I thought that was planned out, with the intention of showing defiance.

    And why is it so clear Jones was hoping to piss off radicals? I thought he was saying the Quran isn’t holy… basically that he doesn’t agree with it. Terry Jones likens Islam to the devil, and burns its holy text because his religious view is that it is evil.

    Is Kman lying to say Jones did this simply to piss off Muslims? Absolutely.

    His lame attempt to distinguish has against trapped him. It’s much more clear that Rosa Parks was being provocative than it is that Jones was. She was planning specifically for the reaction she got, rather than merely doing something that seems defiant, aware of warnings that a reaction could occur.

    Dustin (c16eca)

  171. Dustin

    my understanding is that rosa parks really was being spontaneous. but the reaction was not.

    and much of the civil rights movement was deliberately agitative. Of course the “deliberately agitative” acts were pretty innocuous from our perspective, like walking into a drug store where they had a counter where they served hot food, and asking to place an order. it was only provocative because the dude was black and it was whites only. So the guy sits there, peacefully, but breaking the rules, and people abuse him as he sits. He did it to provoke, but of course to our eyes the guy is just sitting there.

    And the idea was to bring out the cruelty and the violence that underlied segregation. they wanted to be beaten, etc. because that sacrifice would get them what they wanted–a change in the law and a change in our hearts. there is nothing WRONG with any of that, but it is what they did.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  172. The problem, for those that are discussing this with Kman, is that he has you convinced that burning the Koran should be viewed as a provocative act. I suggest you deny him this.

    Makewi (0864f9)

  173. By the same token, Jones knew (again, told by General Petraeus) of the consequences of burning a Koran. But he acted dickish anyway.

    And similarly, civil rights protesters knew of the consequences of getting uppity.

    Well, that may be true, but we’re not talking about “mere words” in the case of Pastor Jones. And you know that.

    Was Texas v. Johnson wrongly decided?

    If not, explain why.

    Michael Ejercito (64388b)

  174. “By the same token, Jones knew (again, told by General Petraeus) of the consequences of burning a Koran. But he acted dickish anyway.”

    Kman – Is General Petraeus the boss of Pastor Jones? If General Petraeus told the NY Times not to publish pictures of or write about Abu Ghraib because of the Muslim backlash, do you think they would have listened? I think we both know the answer to that.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  175. The problem is that Kman already ceded the high moral ground by having no moral ground at all. He flip flops more than John Aristoslacker Kerry.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  176. Daley

    by the end kman was abundantly clear that he only condemned this koran burning because he disagreed with the message.

    Aaron Worthing (73a7ea)

  177. A.W. – You had him spinning in circles.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  178. It never takes long for kmart to call people racists or hohophobes.

    JD (3ee1ee)

  179. Kdud has graduated to a nishi level of repeated meme cycle generations in a single thread.

    ∅ (e7577d)

  180. Kman

    > Gays don’t engage in homosexual sex with the intention of provoking a response from Muslims.

    You’re repeating yourself. But the fact is, again, YOU DIDN’T DRAW THAT DISTINCTION. Your words again.

    > But if you’re intentionally doing something provocative — like burning a Koran, or a flag, or a cross — don’t whine about your free speech when the response is the one you were trying to elicit and/or could foresee in the first place.

    So mere forseeability is enough according to your enunciated principles.

    It’s all false special pleading. Just like with Fair v. Rumsfeld you think somehow it is different when it is your ox being gored. The real Kman rule is everything you like is protected and possibly even funded, and everything everyone else likes is suspect.

    And i will be putting your comment in the penalty box for that personal attack on michael. and considering that i tolerated you making fun of my handicap… well, you will still scream bloody murder, I am sure.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  181. oh, and for the record, here is Kman mocking my disabilities. https://patterico.com/2011/04/01/%E2%80%9Cshame-on-us-if-we-allow-this-act-to-stand-unchallenged-any-longer%E2%80%9D-mcclintock-and-congressman-paul-fight-the-good-fight-on-libya/#comment-771274

    see comment 9.

    The only demonstrable bigot, here, kman is you. You have previously asserted that islam is a racial trait and made fun of me for my disabilities.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  182. and made fun of me for my disabilities

    You know what, AW? Back when I supposedly “made fun” of your disabilities, I was going to apologize. I hadn’t intentionally meant to insult you (I had forgotten about your dyslexia or whatever it is), but an apology was due anyway in my view.

    But you wrote “No more needs to be said”, and so I thought you wanted it dropped. So I dropped it, and never submitted my comment/apology.

    Except… it seems you’re not dropping it. You’re whining about it, using it as a sword.

    So…. I apologize for what I wrote. I take it back. It was wrong, and I was wrong to say it.

    You are now free to continue with your irrelevant and oh-god-i-need-to-change-the-subject-because-I’m-in-a-corner ad homs.

    Kman (5576bf)

  183. Kman

    yeah, selective editing as usual. you wrote:

    But you wrote “No more needs to be said”, and so I thought you wanted it dropped. So I dropped it, and never submitted my comment/apology.

    But in fact this what i said in full context:

    I would [have] removed that for the personal insult, a reference to the dyslexia that you know I suffer from. But instead I will leave it up to show the world what kind of person you are.

    No more needs to be said.

    Yeah, i was saying it was an indictment on your character and I and Dustin have been saying it for days, now. But suddenly it occurs to you to apologize. Right.

    No, you just realized that it was harming you in the debate and are hoping to diffuse it. You didn’t apologize when it was clearly appropriate, but instead when you decided I was “using it as a sword.”

    Apology not accepted because I don’t believe you were sincere.

    Also you call Michael a racist again, and i will put you in moderation. every rational and honest person understands the spirit in which he said that. He obviously sympathized with the civil rights movement.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  184. Apology not accepted because I don’t believe you were sincere.

    That was predictable.

    Just the same, I apologize whether you accept it or not.

    Also you call Michael a racist again, and i will put you in moderation.

    Yeah. If I were to call someone a racist, wouldn’t I have to call them a “racist”, rather than repeating verbatim what they said?

    every rational and honest person understands the spirit in which he said that.

    If that was true, then no harm, no foul. And you wouldn’t feel the need to bury my comment.

    Except… you do feel that need. Interesting.

    Kman (5576bf)

  185. Off topic, but another Japan earthquake.

    Kman (5576bf)

  186. Kmart is turning out to be quite the hateful little cur recently.

    JD (3ee1ee)

  187. “Kmart is turning out to be quite the hateful little cur recently.”

    JD – Kmart is just displaying the patella oppositional reflexes and situational ethics he has demonstrated all along.

    daleyrocks (9b57b3)

  188. Kmart also bans people who disagree with him.

    DohBiden (984d23)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1553 secs.