Hating crap


Richard Wiig

Recommended Posts

(NOTE FROM MSK: These posts were peeled off from this thread on standing with Israel.)

How can you have love without hate? Why is it wrong to be moved by hatred, when hatred is motivated by love? Burning a qur'an is really a very innocuous act if it's merely a crude way of saying "I think the qur'an is a load of cobblers" and "I stand for freedom of speech". If it was a fascist book banning act it wouldn't be innocuous, but that's not what it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Richard,

Look at you.

You hate so much you can't even read correctly.

I said I reject those who "prioritize hatred." You ask how can there be love without hatred as if this is my message.

That's just one of the reasons I could never stand for Israel while standing with you and those like you. That's why I'm glad there is a public figure who makes this distinction as I see it. With Beck, I have a clear reference I can point to--so clear he cannot be misunderstood, only misrepresented by haters.

I'm not like you. I never will be.

Micharel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Richard,

Look at you.

You hate so much you can't even read correctly.

I said I reject those who "prioritize hatred." You ask how can there be love without hatred as if this is my message.

Yes, I did reach an unwarranted conclusion there, but putting that down to me prioritizing hatred is just plain wrong.

That's just one of the reasons I could never stand for Israel while standing with you and those like you.

The reason I couldn't stand with you is because you are unfair and have no regard for justice.

That's why I'm glad there is a public figure who makes this distinction as I see it. With Beck, I have a clear reference I can point to--so clear he cannot be misunderstood, only misrepresented by haters.

I'm not like you. I never will be.

Micharel

Which means that I will never be like you, which is a damn good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Michael, you've thrown me a curved ball and I fell for it. Here's what spurred my comment:

He said the Qu'ran burner was outright wrong because he was moved by hatred. I agree.

As I pointed out, his hatred is the other side of his love, with each revolving around his values. He sees Islam as a threat to his values, so that's what motivates him - the threat to his values, not hatred in and of itself. His form of expressing himself may be crude and might not appeal to you, but so what. It doesn't mean you should judge it any less objectively than speech that does appeal to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Michael, you've thrown me a curved ball and I fell for it. Here's what spurred my comment:

He said the Qu'ran burner was outright wrong because he was moved by hatred. I agree.

As I pointed out, his hatred is the other side of his love, with each revolving around his values. He sees Islam as a threat to his values, so that's what motivates him - the threat to his values, not hatred in and of itself. His form of expressing himself may be crude and might not appeal to you, but so what. It doesn't mean you should judge it any less objectively than speech that does appeal to you.

Richard:

Michael, you or I could objectively judge his "speech" in the act of burning the Qu'ran correct?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it isn't directly speech, like sign language for the deaf isn't directly speech, but it is a symbolic expression and thus comes under the protective mantle of freedom of speech. And yes, you can objectively judge his act in the context of which it was made - it wasn't performed in a vacuum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it isn't directly speech, like sign language for the deaf isn't directly speech, but it is a symbolic expression and thus comes under the protective mantle of freedom of speech. And yes, you can objectively judge his act in the context of which it was made - it wasn't performed in a vacuum.

Agreed. So why do you think that Michael was not judging this book burning asshole objectively?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I don't dispute that Terry Jones is an arsehole (not for burning the koran though), but what do you take his burning of the Qur'an to be? A fascist gesture that the Qur'an should be banned, or a gesture in the defence of freedom of speech? What is his crime, in this instance, exactly? That he has no reverence for the Qur'an?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I don't dispute that Terry Jones is an arsehole (not for burning the koran though), but what do you take his burning of the Qur'an to be? A fascist gesture that the Qur'an should be banned, or a gesture in the defence of freedom of speech? What is his crime, in this instance, exactly? That he has no reverence for the Qur'an?

Richard:

I did not say he committed a crime because he is free to "speak" in that manner. I believe all books are sacred and anyone who burns a book is an imbecile.

Additionally, as a man of God, he should lead by example. This is not an example of disciplined protest. To me, it is that simple.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how Israel gets lost in this focus.

Who cares about the sacred right to burn the Qu'ran when people are starting to line up to literally burn Israel?

Haters don't see that, though. They want to hate as their primary focus, not protect the good.

That's another reason why I can't stand for Israel and stand with the haters. Israel needs voices of support right now.

The haters will always be around to sound off, Israel or no Israel.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how Israel gets lost in this focus.

Who cares about the sacred right to burn the Qu'ran when people are starting to line up to literally burn Israel?

Haters don't see that, though. They want to hate as their primary focus, not protect the good.

That's another reason why I can't stand for Israel and stand with the haters. Israel needs voices of support right now.

The haters will always be around to sound off, Israel or no Israel.

Michael

Minding my own business is my primary focus. It is none of my business what happens to some semi-theocratic socialist state on the other side of the world. Furthermore, I don't give a shit what happens to it. I reject the idea that rushing mindlessly to the defense of a semi-theocratic socialist state is "protecting the good." It's better than its Arab neighbors, do you say? I say: does that make it "the good"? I think not. I think a great many people, including some around here, feel smugly self-righteous when they call for "standing with Israel," and they like that feeling, so they do what they can to enjoy it more often. It's a bit tiresome, but certainly they're within their rights to do so - particularly when it's their own living room they're doing it in.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, I don't dispute that Terry Jones is an arsehole (not for burning the koran though), but what do you take his burning of the Qur'an to be? A fascist gesture that the Qur'an should be banned, or a gesture in the defence of freedom of speech? What is his crime, in this instance, exactly? That he has no reverence for the Qur'an?

Richard:

I did not say he committed a crime because he is free to "speak" in that manner. I believe all books are sacred and anyone who burns a book is an imbecile.

Additionally, as a man of God, he should lead by example. This is not an example of disciplined protest. To me, it is that simple.

Adam

I really didn't mean crime literally. I don't believe all books are valuable, as books qua books they are just paper and pages. I have old tatty paperbacks that I wouldn't care if they were dropped in the dirt and people walked over them, but I have other books that I treasure and are put away where they can remain in good condition. I consider certain ideas to be sacred, such as the sovereignty of the individual, but I have zero reverence for the ideas that I've so far seen in the Qur'an. As a piece of history it is certainly special. From book to book it may certainly be special too, so far as quality and binding etc, goes, but as for your average everyday Qur'an (I have a paperback one, and if I lost it I wouldn't really give a damn)there's nothing particularly special about it. How much value you place on it is an individual thing. How much reverence you place on it too, is an individual thing. I don't see burning one in the defence of freedom of speech as imbecilic. Crude, but not imbecilic. In a crude way, he is standing up here for what is right.

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares about the sacred right to burn the Qu'ran when people are starting to line up to literally burn Israel?

The two are one and the same. It is the right to freedom that is being burned of both Israelis and the Qur'an burners'. The attackers are lining up, not just against Israel, but against the entire Western, and greater non-muslim, world.

Edited by Infidel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah.

For haters, Israel is nothing but a prop to spread their hatred.

Notice how the hatred is continuing while Israel is being shoved aside.

This thread is an excellent example for readers to see exactly how hatred makes you keep coming back to it, regardless of context.

The people getting ready to burn Israel are both fundamentalist Islamists AND the radical left. Even Netanyahu has noticed this in public.

But haters don't care--not unless it can prop up their hatred.

As for the right to burn books, obviously, people in a free country can burn whatever book they want to.

But other people are free to call them the haters and bigots they are when they do it for that reason.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people getting ready to burn Israel are both fundamentalist Islamists AND the radical left

You don't say. You keep saying things such as this as if they are some kind of revelation, when in fact in fact it is nothing that hasn't been noticed for a long long time now. No one here is standing in the way of you defending Israel or trying to shift the focus away from, or defending, Israel. Go for gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, Israel is in no way being shoved aside, at least not by me. Jeff Riggenbach has shoved Israel aside, well and truly, but you ignore that entirely. You haven't made one defense for Israel in the face of his casting them to the wolves, being more concerned with calling me a bigot and a hater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew the only thing this hater dude read in the opening post was about the crazy hater dude who burned the Qu'ran.

Like I said, Israel is a prop to these folks to talk about their hatred. Nothing more (on a fundamental level--maybe there's some distant concern, but it's waaaaaaaaay down in their priorities--just look at what they always talk about).

This is getting boring.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew the only thing this hater dude read in the opening post was about the crazy hater dude who burned the Qu'ran.

How do you work that out? Mind reading again? I read your entire post, and I watched the video.

Like I said, Israel is a prop to these folks to talk about their hatred.

What exactly is it that I'm supposed to be hating here?

Nothing more (on a fundamental level--maybe there's some distant concern, but it's waaaaaaaaay down in their priorities--just look at what they always talk about).

How does that ring true when in actual fact the subject of the Islamic threat (and that includes the leftists aligned with Islam) takes precedence largely over many others? It's actually higher on my priority list than most things. If you think the ongoing controversy of Terry Jone's burning of the Qur'an is trivial, or in no way related to the war against Israel, then all you need do is explain why. Given that people are being murdered because of his burning of the Qur'an, and the OIC and Arab League are continually pressing the West to impliment hate speech laws (which would amount to the implementing of Sharia blasphemy laws) because of his burning of the Qur'an, I don't consider it a trivial issue, or unrelated to the defence of Israel. I consider the elevation of Terry Jones unsophisticated, crude form of speech, to a level of importance greater than the one he is facing is to be petty when there's a much graver issue at hand. As everyone here knows, free speech is really about protecting unpopular views, because popular ones do not need protecting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minding my own business is my primary focus. It is none of my business what happens to some semi-theocratic socialist state on the other side of the world. Furthermore, I don't give a shit what happens to it. I reject the idea that rushing mindlessly to the defense of a semi-theocratic socialist state is "protecting the good." It's better than its Arab neighbors, do you say? I say: does that make it "the good"? I think not. I think a great many people, including some around here, feel smugly self-righteous when they call for "standing with Israel," and they like that feeling, so they do what they can to enjoy it more often. It's a bit tiresome, but certainly they're within their rights to do so - particularly when it's their own living room they're doing it in.

Jeff,

I had mixed feelings on moving your post over with the rest of the thread.

You raise some valid criticisms that should be addressed. But you also make some presumptions that should be addressed, also.

Here's a presumption, for example. My idea of "the good" with Israel does not mean that it is better than its Arab neighbors. The good in this context merely means trying to resolve things by peace and production as opposed to chaos and destruction. As far as I am concerned, chaos and destruction are not practiced by "Arab countries," but instead by the leadership of certain ones, and by organizations within several of the Arab countries. But other groups also practice chaos and destruction as their main focus and strategy. My stand is to support a concrete version of peace and production that is being set up for a violent attack by the "chaos and destruction" folks.

Here's a valid point. You are perfectly within your rights not to care about Israel. I have no beef at all with your indifference, not even attitude-wise. I'm fine with your position, even as I hold a different one.

I have certain reasons for making my stand--which I will elaborate on in the other thread as time goes along--and I do not mind discussing them with you. I often value your input. The context this time, though, was all wrong.

I'm sure there will be no lack of opportunity to get to the parts that were not covered if interest, goodwill and intelligence prevail (and, from my end, I see no reason why it would not).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now