i cant see there's much difference between this and draw muhammed day.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)
Well I'm guessing that the author of the book, 'Islam is the Devil' is doing it through hate.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.
(
riverghost servicing your mum since,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:10,
archived)
Well put. Non-muslims are free to draw Muhammad, or burn as many Qur'ans as they wish,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.
(Regardless, book burning? Really? He's putting himself in some good company.
monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:15,
archived)
yepthere's Hitler and Slough Borough Council's waste incinerator, for starters
(
Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:15,
archived)
Personally I think the burning of any book is disgusting. riverghost servicing your mum since,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:16,
archived)
I make an exception for Dan Brown Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:19,
archived)
Nope even thatalthough I suggest going to the source and just burning Dan Brown.
( riverghost servicing your mum since,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:20,
archived)
We can add him to the list as well
(
BargeArse Maker of fine Trouser Trumpets since 1863,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:37,
archived)
A satire on intolerance?Edgy satire is probably best left to the professionals, rather than the lunatic fringe of any of the major religions.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:29,
archived)
I'm not for one minute suggesting he is doing it satirically. He's clearly a cunt.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)
I think the fact he only has 50 followers might be something to do with it too!
Eduard Khil's Haircut is lurking and liking on,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:34,
archived)
he needs to tweet more then Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:40,
archived)
If that were the case,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.
("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.
monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:40,
archived)
Personally I have no problem with either of those statements if those doing the ridiculing have the right motives.
I'm all for a bit of ridicule, but when you come to"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.
(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.
monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 12:04,
archived)
this is truethere are better ways to make a point than by pissing someone off
unless it's Jeremy Kyle
(unless it's Jeremy Kyle
Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 12:07,
archived)
I can't empathise with people who are upset about their god being offended because I dont believe in god.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)
the three-word description of humanity:people are twats
( Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:14,
archived)
Fehpeople are far too worried about causing offence to the islams
If it was "international mock creationism day" no-one would give a shit
(If it was "international mock creationism day" no-one would give a shit
emvee cruor deo cruoris,
Wed 8 Sep 2010, 11:34,
archived)