Burning a Holy Text

[Tank]

This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion. Again, successful troll is successful.

Not sure I follow the underlined.

They're trolling for an emotional response from the world.  Every emotional response to their shenanigans is a success.

Yep.

[PoopShoot]

I don't have a problem having an emotional response to this.  Personally, I would distrust a person that wasn't disturbed by this sort of thing on some level.  If that makes Terry Jones a successful troll, so be it.  The emotional response is only part of the reason I object to it, though, on top of other logical reasons.  

And what would the logical reasons be?

I don't think an emotional response in this sort of situation is totally illogical or inappropriate, given the history of book burnings.

[italics added]
How is an emotional reason a support of the alleged logic of the response?

[philosoraptor]

Why do emotions always have to be portrayed as illogical or inappropriate?  It's not as if emotion and logic are polar opposites-they aren't.  There are instances when certain emotional responses to a particular situation may be inappropriate, but that doesn't make all emotional responses illogical.  You wouldn't tell someone they were being illogical if they were feeling emotional at a funeral or a wedding, would you?  Again, I'll repeat myself and say I don't think an emotional response to book burnings is wrong.  I have family who lived through the Holocaust, and most of my friends are Jewish with more of a few of them having grandparents who survived the Holocaust.  So for me, no, an emotional response is not illogical because book burnings hold a significant place in the history of tyranny.  I don't really owe you an explanation for feeling that way.

I would feel the same way if they were burning the Bible or a book of poetry.  It doesn't make a difference to me.  I have a problem with the notion that we should burn the books containing the ideals we don't agree with.  It espouses hatred, bigotry, ignorance and fear.  That is another reason why I have a problem with it.

[PoopShoot]

Why do emotions always have to be portrayed as illogical or inappropriate?  It's not as if emotion and logic are polar opposites-they aren't.

No they're not.  They are, however, different.  They aren't mutually exclusive, either.  They are, however, different.  One does not support the other.  They're complimentary, but they are not mutually inclusive with one another.

There are instances when certain emotional responses to a particular situation may be inappropriate, but that doesn't make all emotional responses illogical.  You wouldn't tell someone they were being illogical if they were feeling emotional at a funeral or a wedding, would you?  

No, I wouldn't.  I would merely think it.  Unless it were a funeral for a friend, in which case I would be too preoccupied with my own emotions to be worried about logic at all.  Regardless, emotions are alogical, if not illogical.

Again, I'll repeat myself and say I don't think an emotional response to book burnings is wrong.  

I know.  You also tried to equate your emotional reason for this with logic.  If it's right for emotional reasons, it can still be alogical.

I have family who lived through the Holocaust, and most of my friends are Jewish with more of a few of them having grandparents who survived the Holocaust.  

Non-sequitur.  This has nothing to do with Jews or Nazis (though that kind of censorship, to me, is kind of fascist).

So for me, no, an emotional response is not illogical because book burnings hold a significant place in the history of tyranny.  

By that logic the arguments against atheism that invoke Stalin are valid.  Censorship by book burning is a tool of, though separate from, Fascist dictatorships.

I don't really owe you an explanation for feeling that way.

Of course not, but you DID proffer it on a discussion forum.  If it bothers you to discuss it, I will have no qualms with you bowing out.

I would feel the same way if they were burning the Bible or a book of poetry.  It doesn't make a difference to me.  I have a problem with the notion that we should burn the books containing the ideals we don't agree with.  It espouses hatred, bigotry, ignorance and fear.  That is another reason why I have a problem with it.

But "WE" implies that this is a government sancioned action that Americans as a whole are ok with.  We're not, we merely understand that speaking out against it is acceptable, while abrogating their freedom to do it is not.  At least some of us do.

[philosoraptor]

How does "we" imply that it's a government sanctioned act?  You're reading between the lines for an implication that isn't there.  We is merely a colloquialism in this context.

[PoopShoot]

How does "we" imply that it's a government sanctioned act?  You're reading between the lines for an implication that isn't there.  We is merely a colloquialism in this context.

It at least implies the population.

[philosoraptor]

How does "we" imply that it's a government sanctioned act?  You're reading between the lines for an implication that isn't there.  We is merely a colloquialism in this context.

It at least implies the population.

Population and government are not the same thing, nor does we imply either of those things anyway.

[PoopShoot]

So then "We" implies you and you alone?  Would you prefer to define your ambiguous term?

[philosoraptor]

So then "We" implies you and you alone?  Would you prefer to define your ambiguous term?

If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  You've already missed the point either way.

[PoopShoot]

If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  

I do understand colloquial language.  I don't, however, understand who the rest of "you" are.

You've already missed the point either way.

Rejection is not a miss.

[philosoraptor]

If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  

I do understand colloquial language.  I don't, however, understand who the rest of "you" are.

You as in you, as in you whom I'm tired of arguing semantics with.  You claim you understand colloquial language, but apparently not without someone spelling it out for you literally.  If my statement was that hard to grasp, I'll invite anyone else to speak up but I don't think it's that hard to intimate what I meant given context.

[Har]

If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  

I do understand colloquial language.  I don't, however, understand who the rest of "you" are.

You as in you, as in you whom I'm tired of arguing semantics with.  You claim you understand colloquial language, but apparently not without someone spelling it out for you literally.  If my statement was that hard to grasp, I'll invite anyone else to speak up but I don't think it's that hard to intimate what I meant given context.

*raises hand* Yeah, what's this "we" business?

[Sophus]

Good news: They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink).
Bad news: They're going through with it anyways.

So I say put a firetruck out there to douse any flames. That would be a much better image for the extremists to see anyways.

[PoopShoot]

Good news: They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink).
Bad news: They're going through with it anyways.

So I say put a firetruck out there to douse any flames. That would be a much better image for the extremists to see anyways.

And fine the living shit out of them as well.

[Tank]

Good news: They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink).
Bad news: They're going through with it anyways.

So I say put a firetruck out there to douse any flames. That would be a much better image for the extremists to see anyways.

Wouldn't it be good if the firemen just happened to miss the fire and hit the Reverend Asshole instead.