

that the idiots with the most controversial views get completely disproportionate media coverage?
Why are the fuckwits always in control of the message?
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:51,
archived)
Why are the fuckwits always in control of the message?

You can't be quite right in the head of you share a name with a Python!:P
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:53,
archived)

...should include a disclaimer that the views of outlying nutter in question does not represent the views of the majority of nice, tea drinking, civilised inhabitants of this green and pleasant land, and any anger or retaliation should be directed against said nutter directly...
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:57,
archived)

Not paying attention to news properly.
Small Church in 'Merka? Now I'm not surprised...
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:01,
archived)
Small Church in 'Merka? Now I'm not surprised...

and provide more trainwreck entertainment than cats stuck up trees.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:00,
archived)

1. Nutso minority says something outrageous
2. Sensationalist press stokes it up to sell more papers
3. Nutso minority with opposing view says something outrageous
4. Initial nutso minority says "See, told you they were nuts!"
5. Opposing nutso minority carries out atrocity.
6. Cheryl Cole becomes ill and both nutso minorities are swiftly forgotten.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:05,
archived)
2. Sensationalist press stokes it up to sell more papers
3. Nutso minority with opposing view says something outrageous
4. Initial nutso minority says "See, told you they were nuts!"
5. Opposing nutso minority carries out atrocity.
6. Cheryl Cole becomes ill and both nutso minorities are swiftly forgotten.

Obviously, that message is "Hi, we're hypocrites, come burn our church down"
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:53,
archived)

Which just makes the 'tashe completely ironic.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:54,
archived)

Whoooof! (said in Lord Flashheart voice)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfbSHW9uGA
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:59,
archived)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKfbSHW9uGA

I like reason nine: "Deep in the Islamic teaching and culture is the irrational fear and loathing of the West."
The West - the land of Jesus!
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:53,
archived)
The West - the land of Jesus!

Will invariably give money to warious Islamic bodies through royalties.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 10:56,
archived)


( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:00,
archived)

if it's just them burning them.
crackpotfools.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:03,
archived)
crackpotfools.

pfft stupid hate monger! (not u RG)
Howdy!
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:05,
archived)
Howdy!

I suppose this is motivated by hatred of muslims and draw muhammed day was motivated by outrage at the actions of offended muslims. But both are designed to cause offence.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:07,
archived)

While I have no problem with Muslims lot allowing pictorial depiction of Muhammed I do a problem with not being allowed to do it myself. If I was muslim I would adhere to this tenet but as I'm not them have no say in what I do.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:10,
archived)

but making a public show of it is just irresponsible and deliberately provocative (just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should).
Regardless, book burning? Really? He's putting himself in some good company.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:15,
archived)
Regardless, book burning? Really? He's putting himself in some good company.

there's Hitler and Slough Borough Council's waste incinerator, for starters
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:15,
archived)

although I suggest going to the source and just burning Dan Brown.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:20,
archived)

Edgy satire is probably best left to the professionals, rather than the lunatic fringe of any of the major religions.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:29,
archived)

But what if he was trying to cause offence to draw attention to the ridiculousness of religious belief or for another motive other than pure hatred?
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:33,
archived)


then he might want to find a better method of expressing himself.
"I wish to ridicule your beliefs" is a fine sentiment, but "I wish to ridicule your beliefs in the most outrageous way possible, causing the maximum of offence and using methods normally reserved for intolerant, oppressive regimes" is less laudable.
Perhaps he could arrange a sit down between a rabbi, an imam, himself and a leading atheist to discuss the issues in a full and frank manner? No fire, and likely a more positive outcome, when they realise that they all have more in common than they thought.
That said, if he wants to burn Richard Dawkins, I'll chip in some petrol money.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:40,
archived)
"I wish to ridicule your beliefs" is a fine sentiment, but "I wish to ridicule your beliefs in the most outrageous way possible, causing the maximum of offence and using methods normally reserved for intolerant, oppressive regimes" is less laudable.
Perhaps he could arrange a sit down between a rabbi, an imam, himself and a leading atheist to discuss the issues in a full and frank manner? No fire, and likely a more positive outcome, when they realise that they all have more in common than they thought.
That said, if he wants to burn Richard Dawkins, I'll chip in some petrol money.


"See this *book/flag/dvd* that you hold holier than holy? Look, I'm setting fire to it!" then you've probably crossed a line.
Personally, unless their burning a living thing*, or some irreplaceable object, then I don't really give a shit, but empathy is a useful facet of the human condition.
*Dawkins excepted.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 12:04,
archived)
Personally, unless their burning a living thing*, or some irreplaceable object, then I don't really give a shit, but empathy is a useful facet of the human condition.
*Dawkins excepted.

there are better ways to make a point than by pissing someone off
unless it's Jeremy Kyle
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 12:07,
archived)
unless it's Jeremy Kyle

I can recognise that burning their holy book upsets them but I think they should get over it.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 12:29,
archived)

people are far too worried about causing offence to the islams
If it was "international mock creationism day" no-one would give a shit
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:34,
archived)
If it was "international mock creationism day" no-one would give a shit

He would be the first, closely followed by the Australian PM, Julia Gillard
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:18,
archived)

Once more, she's an atheist. So she'd probably be burning the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas and everything else
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:22,
archived)

and incompetent. But then again, that sums up most politicians anyway
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:36,
archived)

but she has to be better than Tony Abbot?
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:46,
archived)

There's been a load of letters in TNT magazine from AUstralians say how lame does the 'democracy' in the UK couldn't even elect the party with the most votes.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:20,
archived)

It is beyond me how a party with the most votes is not able to form a government
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:25,
archived)

( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:24,
archived)

However, I don't think that defiling her would be ideal. She's so ugly that even the flies stay away.
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:28,
archived)

Surely its time for our religious fundamentalists to start RECYCLING books instead of burning them?
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:29,
archived)

Two nutty religious organisations taking potshots at each other
Can't we get the Jews, Hindus and Baha'is to join in as well?
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:32,
archived)
Can't we get the Jews, Hindus and Baha'is to join in as well?

Why does that remind me of a Monty Python skit featuring different religions playing football?
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:34,
archived)

I'm more in mind of the sketch about the bishop and the atheist wrestling for the existence of God - who ultimately existed thanks to two falls and a submission
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:40,
archived)

Get all the other relegions to kill each other off while they sit in the background and wait to take over the world.:P
( ,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:40,
archived)