a message to book-burners...

[david petley]

you jerks, wake up to yourselves.

Nothing good is ever achieved by burning books, but if you are looking to be well hated, and want a bit of notoriety, go ahead. Ideas and ideologies cannot be destroyed by fire.

As I said before ....jerks.

davidp

[silverx2]

id burn every twilite book i could get my hands on as long as someone provides those books for free

[david petley]

I reckon all these radical religious fruitcakes should have an annual international book-burning convention.

They could fleece their followers for the airfare, bring whatever books they want to burn, and get together in a stadium with worldwide media coverage, where they can see who can build the biggest book pyre and develop the most novel way of starting their fire.

Once they ran out of books, they could start on each other.

[FlashLackey]

I agree. Anti-religious bigotry is wrong in all of its forms.

I assume that you have a similar message for the "artists" desecrating Christian symbols and other religion based insults as well (like those that have popped up on this board for example)?

[hanratty21]

Just let Triumph loose to poop on all of the religious icons regardless of faith and be done with it.

[david petley]

like those that have popped up on this board for example

That's not my worry anymore, let the bosses here know and they can go and be censors.



I used to care.

I assume that you have a similar message for the "artists" desecrating Christian symbols

no. just people who burn books out of narrow-minded bigotry and hatred.

<addendum> did you miss the topic title?

[FlashLackey]

So, if someone wants to express themselves by burning a Qu'ran, they are jerks. But, if they want to express themselves by burning a bible, it's ok?

[david petley]

So, if someone wants to express themselves by burning a Qu'ran, they are jerks. But, if they want to express themselves by burning a bible, it's ok?

You aren't getting it are you?

just people who burn books out of narrow-minded bigotry and hatred

.

In other words, that means anyone who burns books because of narrow-minded bigotry and hatred.

...oh, hold on, they are the same words.

dp

[david petley]

...reads like the latest book-burning event has been cancelled.
http://www.radioaustralianews.net.au...97.htm?desktop

Common sense prevails.

It just breeds hatred, and the world has enough already.

[FlashLackey]

You aren't getting it are you?

No. You haven't made it very clear what you mean since you seem to be distinguishing insults on some basis.

In other words, that means anyone who burns books because of narrow-minded bigotry and hatred.

Ok. So, as long as it's book-burning in style, it's wrong against any religion. Burning a Qu'ran is wrong while displaying a crucifix in urine is ok?

[gerbick]

I never quite got the whole concept of burning books. It's not like more cannot be printed.

Why not take it upon yourself to fly there, burn the books in front of the people you wish to offend/make a statement to, place yourself in harm's way as opposed to creating a situation where the unnecessarily created anger is displaced and innocent people that didn't burn the books take the brunt of that aggression.

Simple terms... want to make a statement, carry yourself into the middle of that quagmire and let the people that you wish to make a statement against see your face so they can accurately tell you how they feel... or show you.

Hiding behind a camera, sending a message and no fear of consequence is a rather complacent, lazy and fearful way to make a statement. Being around like minded people, surrounded by what makes you comfortable, and having no fear of any repercussions... it gets real easy to make a statement. Even an idiot can do it.

Rally, go deep into the belly of the beast, let your faces be seen. Make your statement in front of the people that you despise... hell. I'm starting to understand why the civil rights movement was so effective and left a long-lasting feeling. They marched in the middle of "enemy territory", had dogs, angry mobs, police, extreme organizations all threaten them, in some cases kill them and they still kept going.

Book burning is the coward version of that. You can burn a book in your backyard. Nobody would know. But televise it, put it on YouTube... you've done nothing more than film your cowardice.

</soapbox>

I disagree than any book should be burned. Be it the Holy Qu'ran, Bible, or even Reader's Digest or National Enquirer... make better "statements" through better means. This will cause an uproar that makes General Petraeus' job that much harder and nothing good will come out of it... other than the self-fulfilling satisfaction that somebody got their ego-driven whim out of the way.

Meh.

[david petley]

No. You haven't made it very clear what you mean since you seem to be distinguishing insults on some basis.

Sheesh dude. Which bit of anyone who burns books because of narrow-minded bigotry and hatred do you not understand?

Where in this topic have I not made my thoughts on book-burning very clear?

Ok. So, as long as it's book-burning in style, it's wrong against any religion. Burning a Qu'ran is wrong while displaying a crucifix in urine is ok?

I choose not to get into the artistic merits, or lack theroeof, of someone doing something to the bible that does not relate to some religious narrow-minded, hating bigot setting fire to it.

You want to discuss urine soaked bibles, start your own topic.

david

[david petley]

....Rally, go deep into the belly of the beast, let your faces be seen. Make your statement in front of the people that you despise... hell. I'm starting to understand why the civil rights movement was so effective and left a long-lasting feeling. They marched in the middle of "enemy territory", had dogs, angry mobs, police, extreme organizations all threaten them, in some cases kill them and they still kept going.

Book burning is the coward version of that. You can burn a book in your backyard. Nobody would know. But televise it, put it on YouTube... you've done nothing more than film your cowardice.

for that post. Well typed.

davidp

[david petley]

...and just to add to this, my objection to book-burning has nothing to do with insulting anyone. It has to do with destroying knowledge, and the deeper implications of what is going on.

As gerbick said, it is cowardice, and I believe it is about someone or someones, trying to control the emotional temperature of the weak of spirit, or stupid, and who thinks that destroying knowledge is OK, as long as it is someone else's knowledge and serves it inciteful purpose. Everyone likes a good bonfire.

[FlashLackey]

...

Book burning is the coward version of that. You can burn a book in your backyard. Nobody would know. But televise it, put it on YouTube... you've done nothing more than film your cowardice.

I agree.

Isn't that similar to people making anti-religious insults on the internet?

Where in this topic have I not made my thoughts on book-burning very clear?

Right here:

I assume that you have a similar message for the "artists" desecrating Christian symbols.

no. just people who burn books out of narrow-minded bigotry and hatred.

The basis for your original message appeared to be that it's wrong to be bigoted against religion and to make public displays of it.

However, you don't seem willing to apply that same basis toward other instances of anti-religious bigotry. It's not clear how or why you would distinguish different instances of it.

I choose not to get into the artistic merits, or lack theroeof, of someone doing something to the bible that does not relate to some religious narrow-minded, hating bigot setting fire to it.

So, if this person who planned on burning the Qu'ran told everyone that it was just art, you wouldn't have a problem with it, regardless of how people responded to it?

...and just to add to this, my objection to book-burning has nothing to do with insulting anyone. It has to do with destroying knowledge, and the deeper implications of what is going on.

What knowledge would be lost or destroyed if he carried this out?

[david petley]

The basis for your original message appeared to be that it's wrong to be bigoted against religion and to make public displays of it.

Nonsense. the basis of my original message is very clear and this is what it said "Nothing good is ever achieved by burning books, but if you are looking to be well hated, and want a bit of notoriety, go ahead. Ideas and ideologies cannot be destroyed by fire."

So tell me which bit of that actually says

it's wrong to be bigoted against religion and to make public displays of it

However, you don't seem willing to apply that same basis toward other instances of anti-religious bigotry. It's not clear how or why you would distinguish different instances of it.

Because my objection is about the symbolism of burning books. I don't care which books.

So, if this person who planned on burning the Qu'ran told everyone that it was just art, you wouldn't have a problem with it, regardless of how people responded to it?

I have no idea. I somehow doubt this person considers what he was going to do art. Can you confirm otherwise?

What knowledge would be lost or destroyed if he carried this out?

you know, every time I bother to type a response at you I just wonder why. This was a symbolic book-burning action, and it's intent was inciteful, either to rally others to an evil cause, or to bring others together with a common purpose that is detrimental to humankind. A man with lies and hatred in his heart, and malice to those who are not like him.

He should crawl back under his rock, and there should be a special place in hell for those who burn books.

[FlashLackey]

Because my objection is about the symbolism of burning books. I don't care which books.

Isn't the specific intent of the symbolism the issue?

If a guy burns some books to make room in his attic, I assume that you don't take issue with it. If a guy burns his college books to symbolize that he wasn't happy with his education, does that make him a jerk?

I have no idea. I somehow doubt this person considers what he was going to do art. Can you confirm otherwise?

I never wrote that he did. It was a hypothetical question.

My position is that once something is made to be a public expression, it becomes a two-way equation. In other words, if it offends the group associated, it doesn't matter if the creator says it shouldn't, is art or whatever. Unless the person is genuinely unaware of how it would be received, it remains inciteful.

So tell me which bit of that actually says

You confirm my impression in the same post that this sentence appears:

This was a symbolic book-burning action, and it's intent was inciteful, either to rally others to an evil cause, or to bring others together with a common purpose that is detrimental to humankind. A man with lies and hatred in his heart, and malice to those who are not like him.

He should crawl back under his rock, and there should be a special place in hell for those who burn books.

I agreed and asked you a question in response. Whether or not you have the same feelings about other symbolic acts, inciting anti-religious bigotry.

[david petley]

...can't be bothered.

Anyone who is interested in a quick read -
http://www.helium.com/items/1946481-...f-book-burning

[FlashLackey]

Thanks for the article.

Pretty much sums up exactly what I was getting at. Burning a holy book is bad because there are negative social implications. Same with desecrating other religious symbols. Whatever the person hopes to accomplish by it is "not nearly as important as what will surely happen."

Not sure why you would have such an issue "bothering" to agree with that.

[david petley]

Not sure why you would have such an issue "bothering" to agree with that.

Because I don't care that it was a holy book. I care about the impact and motives of such an act, regardless of what book is being burnt.

The fact that it is a holy book for more than half of the world is bound to have more impact, but the evil and ignorance behind the act does not change, and that is what really bothers me ...NOT the fact that the book is holy.

Some German Jewish poet almost 200 years ago said it best with something like "first they burn books, then they burn people".

<addendum> actually, this was the line - Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." ("That was but a prelude; where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people also.")