reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
I have always stood on the side of liberty and freedom. As long as you harm no one else. Sorry, we as a society are supposed to stand back and let our
government trash every religion there is, EXCEPT islam? Right, yeah going to get behind that one.
What you are displaying is a basic truth, even though you haven't arrived at or at the very least, mentioned what that basic truth is.
That truth being the perception of damages having occurred. In law suits this is referred to as mental anguish, pain and suffering caused by a
specific set of circumstances falling upon the victim through some other party’s negligence or willful harmful acts.
Yet because mental pain and anguish is a matter of perception and how a unique individual internalizes events and circumstances that do then upset
them, depress them, anger them, it is mental anguish, pain and suffering.
For example if someone mentions my receding hairline, it's up to me how I want to internalize it. I can allow it to upset me, and blame the other
person for mentioning it, I can imagine too, why the other person mentioned it as either being an insulting act, or simply an honest observation. In
other words I have the right to upset myself over what is the truth, I have a receding hairline.
Now if I choose to allow myself to become upset, I really have no recourse except to disassociate myself from that individual who mentioned it if at
all possible. Though that does not preclude other individuals in the future from observing and mentioning I have a receding hairline.
Now here is the funny thing, I am not bald, yet some people might exaggerate for mean spirited purposes and call me bald! So now we get down to
degrees and shades, of how bald am I or how bald am I not. If people exaggerate my receding hairline for the purpose of trying to insult me or provoke
a reaction it becomes far more obvious than someone saying, wow you are loosing your hair, have you thought of switching shampoos or trying a hair
I still might complain about how unfair the world might seem to be, since I don't have much control over a receding hairline.
Much like someone born into a nation that is predominantly or exclusively Jewish, Christian or Muslim doesn't have much choice in becoming a member of
Now some people are more sensitive about their appearances than others, so telling them they are bald, or fat, or ugly might prompt a very angry
response up to and including violence.
Violence of course can escalate and get out of control.
Some people are more sensitive about their religious beliefs and beliefs in general than others, and they might get upset about their religion being
criticized up to and including violence.
If you know someone is overly sensitive about something, and you do something to provoke them, then you may have to deal with the consequences of your
free speech, because the individual does have an inherent right to respond as they see fit, regardless of the laws, or conventional wisdom.
Our laws provide some recourse against people who respond poorly, but our laws are not applicable everywhere and to everyone throughout the world that
burning a sacred symbol and icon of their religion is likely to upset.
So having an expectation of saying or doing something that is highly offensive to people around the world, only being reacted to in a manner
prescribed by our own national laws, is rather foolish and not likely to occur as you wish or believe it should.
Since our laws don't apply there, nor do our customs, their laws and their customs apply there, and they might take exception to ours as much as we
take exception to theirs.
So is it worth upsetting people wholesale through an expression designed purposefully to upset people wholesale?
It has in fact harmed our nations image abroad not just in the Islamic World but throughout Europe and Canada as well.
What you are displaying through your own sensitivities about your religion and your flag, is yes their is a reasonable expectation that defiling
symbols and icons of someone else's religion is going to upset them.
Wars have been fought for less.
Responsibility comes along with free speech, and while yes the law of the land permits you freedom of speech and expression up to a degree, (try
burning down a bank because you don't like the Federal Reserve) simply means the government itself will not punish you or retaliate for using free
speech. As to those whom you offend, those laws do not serve as an absolute preventative measure from them retaliating for what they perceive as a
offense, even though you might yourself not see it as an offense or one that warrants such a retaliation.
This is in part why mental anguish is so hard to prove in lawsuits.
While burning a Quran is not willful negligence on your part, it is a willful act on your part, so you are, and you are alone responsible for any
reprisals doing that entails.
Your government is simply advising you their may be reprisals to that act, and rightly and wisely so.
Trying to justify doing that because of previous acts committed by others that you are sensitive too does not and will not negate your own act, or
make it non-offensive in this occurrence.
Assuming that other's including government cautioning you about that is favoring one religion over another, is once again just your own perception and
how you internalize wise advice.
Engaging in and condoning the same kind of behavior towards others that you find offensive when directed towards you, in fact makes you no different
than those people, so you aren't proving any dissimilarity but a similarity.
Reacting emotionally is not the same thing as responding intellectually, and most people on both sides of this divide are being ruled by their
emotions not their intellect.
Liberties are privileges granted by the government, people confuse them with rights which are inherent to your own humanity and nature.
No one can take away your inherent human and inalienable right to respond violently when insulted or provoked, and your government can't take it away
from Americans any more than they can take it away from the rest of the world.
That's why the jails are full of people who have committed violent acts.
They can take your liberty, your privelage away to respond violently when provoked or insulted, but they can't take away your right to do it, they can
only punish you if you exercise that right.
The constitution won't stop a speeding bullet, you though can stop yourself from doing something stupid for a purely emotional reason, that might
provoke someone into shooting you.
Someone who likely would not, if you simply did not do that.
It's very simple.
edit on 11/9/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler because: (no reason given)