|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 11:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
It's very popular to say that non-physical actions do not warrant force but the question is where do you draw the line?
|
Can you give an example of a legal, non-physical act which you think a private citizen should respond to with violence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I hear that a lot of people actually held to that saying not long ago... |
Someone ought to invent a law akin to Godwin's Law about Voltaire. It's an incredibly cliched - and what's more, very insincere - quotation. No, you wouldn't defend to the death someone's right to free speech. You'd be insane to. Believing in free speech - yes, of course. Defending it to the point that you might actually lose your life - you cannot possibly value life very much if you'd sacrifice it in this way.
Perhaps I'm being too literal.
| comm wrote: |
| And the metaphor of rape victims being responsible for being raped is completely viable here. In some places in the world wearing a skirt WILL get you raped in the nicest part of town. Those in power say she should have known better, and she bears significant responsibility. The question at hand is whether the US will allow this concept to play out in freedom of speech and press, rather than fashion. |
That's as maybe, but I was careful to say "a woman isn't likely to be raped at the best of times". Parts of the world where women are in danger of being raped on a nanosecond by nanosecond basis - such as South Africa - can be overlooked as anomalous, at least so far as our present discussion is concerned. As a general rule however (and there seems to be broad agreement here): if you purposefully provoke Muslim extremists, particularly with highly blasphemous activity such as burning books and drawing cartoons, the dire consequences that inevitably await you are your own fault.
If A draws an offensive cartoon, and many B's riot in the streets (which causes the death of C), A caused C's death. That's my position.
I am an unwavering supporter of people's right to burn books, draw cartoons and shout all sorts of inflamatory rhetoric from the rooftops - anti-Islamic or otherwise - but I'd much prefer it if they didn't bother, because disorderly conditions are certain to follow, which endangers not only one's own safety but that of bystanders also.
Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:04 am Post subject: Dear Fox |
|
|
Government oppression.
I don't think I have to go into much details but you can imagine how the gubbermint can non-physically harm its citizens. In this case I would argue the use of force is acceptable.
This isn't a new idea, there are plenty of those that have mentioned this:
| Quote: |
n his book How Nonviolence Protects the State, anarchist Peter Gelderloos criticizes nonviolence as being ineffective, racist, statist, patriarchal, tactically and strategical inferior to militant activism, and deluded.[28] Gelderloos claims that traditional histories whitewash the impact of nonviolence, ignoring the involvement of militants in such movements as the Indian independence movement and the Civil Rights movement and falsely showing Gandhi and King as being their respective movements' most successful activists.[29] He further argues that nonviolence is generally advocated by privileged white people who expect "oppressed people, many of whom are people of color, to suffer patiently under an inconceivably greater violence, until such time as the Great White Father is swayed by the movement's demands or the pacifists achieve that legendary 'critical mass.'"[30]
The efficacy of nonviolence was also challenged by some anti-capitalist protesters advocating a "diversity of tactics" during street demonstrations across Europe and the US following the anti-World Trade Organization protests in Seattle, Washington in 1999. American feminist writer D. A. Clarke, in her essay "A Woman With A Sword," suggests that for nonviolence to be effective, it must be "practiced by those who could easily resort to force if they chose." This argument reasons that nonviolent tactics will be of little or no use to groups that are traditionally considered incapable of violence, since nonviolence will be in keeping with people's expectations for them and thus go unnoticed. Such is the principle of dunamis (from the Greek: δύνάμις or, restrained power) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolence#Criticism |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:13 am Post subject: Re: Dear Fox |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Government oppression. |
Government oppression isn't non-physical. If you don't comply with oppressive government mandates, they will arrest and imprison you, or at the very least physically seize your property. Sure, an oppressive government might not physically interact with every citizen it oppresses, but the omnipresent threat of physical violence and/or seizure of physical possessions is sufficient for it to qualify as a physical matter.
Another example? Preferably one which doesn't involve an anarchist condemning non-violence as an ineffective means of overthrowing the government? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dr. King once said that "if you dont stand for something, you will lie down for anything"
Hell yeah it is worth dying for some things and people have done it. So some religous goons want to force people to live an think a cetain way and they might use violence. Well dont give into these psychos.
A lot of people in Alabama amd Missisippi were threatened beaten , jailed and they knew this was going to happen when they challenged the authorities down there.
This is not about religion this is political, and a police matter. This thread does not seem to be attacking religion just those who use religion as an excuse for certain actions.
Hopefully she will draw more things that tick people off!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| Dr. King once said that "if you dont stand for something, you will lie down for anything" |
I do stand for something. I am a very opinionated and doctrinaire individual. But I would never sacrifice my own life for free speech and I consider anyone who would to be insane. Nor am I in a rush to insult the religion of Muslims. Not anymore. Keeping out the left from government is far more important than keeping society secular. As long as the ideas of Marx and ecology are away from me, to be honest, I couldn't care less about secularism.
I love the way people keep bringing up the Old South, btw. That's nice and proportional.
Last edited by Sergio Stefanuto on Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:16 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, the government oppression can come in many forms it doesn't have to even interact with you in the manner you mentioned to legally oppress or harm you.
They could sign on to allowing pollution and indirectly harm or even kill its citizens in the process. They can sell off the countries resources for self-serving profits damaging the livelihood of it's citizens (i'm talking starvation here). You can see that there are numerous ways people in power do things non-violently to hurt others that can justify violence against them.
The way we conventionally view non-violent speech does not take into account that it can produce direct harm on others. Here's another example, if the gubbermint one is disagreeable:
A bully can verbally insult another child continuously for years. While this is legal and non-violent, it has direct effects on the brain functioning and chemicals secreted in the other child. The bullied child develops depression or some other mental illness as a result of it. In this way you can see that insults are a direct form of violence that has real effects of the health and well-being of the bullied child.
Now in this case, I think retaliation is justified. If the bullied child retaliates with psychologically damaging insults and causes the original bully to cry or cause significant trauma this can affect his personality in damaging ways.
Basically, in my original post, I was questioning the idea of non-violent speech and whether such a thing even exists with to begin with. In the West, we say that free speech is non-violent and that almost anything said is permissible, but really?
And please don't answer this question with another question again..
PS: I hope I don't have to go on pubmed and dig out studies that show that speech has consequences on the functioning of the brain. I'm hoping you can take my word on it or doing your own search on fmri studies or wiki or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
Fox, the government oppression can come in many forms it doesn't have to even interact with you in the manner you mentioned to legally oppress or harm you.
They could sign on to allowing pollution and indirectly harm or even kill its citizens in the process. |
I'm not going to murder anyone over pollution regulations or lack thereof, nor support anyone who thinks it's reasonable.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| They can sell off the countries resources for self-serving profits damaging the livelihood of it's citizens (i'm talking starvation here). |
This is physical; they're taking by force goods produced by citizen labor in an unjust and excessive fashion to the detriment of the citizen base, forcing them to fight back in defense of their physical well being.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| You can see that there are numerous ways people in power do things non-violently to hurt others that can justify violence against them. |
So far I haven't seen it; your compelling examples have all been physical in nature.
| recessiontime wrote: |
The way we conventionally view non-violent speech does not take into account that it can produce direct harm on others. Here's another example, if the gubbermint one is disagreeable:
A bully can verbally insult another child continuously for years. While this is legal and non-violent, it has direct effects on the brain functioning and chemicals secreted in the other child. The bullied child develops depression or some other mental illness as a result of it. In this way you can see that insults are a direct form of violence that has real effects of the health and well-being of the bullied child.
Now in this case, I think retaliation is justified. |
I don't. I think parental involvement is justified in such a severe case. Violence will only make the situation worse.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| PS: I hope I don't have to go on pubmed and dig out studies that show that speech has consequences on the functioning of the brain. I'm hoping you can take my word on it or doing your own search on fmri studies or wiki or something. |
No, I accept it. If you are suffering from psychological harm as the result of someone's words, however, the answer isn't to physically attack the speaker, however. The answer is to cease to listen to the speaker. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| No, I accept it. If you are suffering from psychological harm as the result of someone's words, however, the answer isn't to physically attack the speaker, however. The answer is to cease to listen to the speaker. |
Is that what you do in your class room when a student disrupts your teaching and acts against your authorita? Simply cease listening to them?
Teacha's normally take physical action against students that disrupt your class with some sort of consequence or threat of consequence.
Are you an exception this this or are you preaching a set of different morals for the rest of us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Quote: |
| No, I accept it. If you are suffering from psychological harm as the result of someone's words, however, the answer isn't to physically attack the speaker, however. The answer is to cease to listen to the speaker. |
Is that what you do in your class room when a student disrupts your teaching and acts against your authorita? Simply cease listening to them? |
I can tell you what I don't do: attack them. We're talking about when violence is or is not an appropriate response, and when someone could be said to be at fault for violence (or the threat of violence) against them.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Teacha's normally take physical action against students that disrupt your class with some sort of consequence or threat of consequence. |
First of all, I don't hit my students, recessiontime, and I don't support teachers beating students. If a student were to genuinely attack me or another student, I would use force to restrain them, but never over mere classroom distraction. There are plenty of alternative means of recourse, and by utilizing those means of recourse, we teach our students how to resolve conflicts using the methods civilized society affords us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is interesting to put this case into perspective. It is by no means the first case where media has been intimidated into obeying sharia law. Salman Rushdie is in hiding. Theo Van Gogh is dead. Hirsi Ali continues to need personal security and the Danish cartoonists are under guard.
In 2008, Tyler Hurd, a student at St. Cloud State University had to leave a teacher training program at a high school because of a Muslim student's threat to harm his dog. The dog is a service dog that helps Hurd when he has seizures and the incident was passed off as a 'misunderstanding.' The last case seems like a small thing but it demonstrates just how far we have gone down the path towards dhimitude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gwangjuboy
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Location: England
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
| because disorderly conditions are certain to follow, which endangers not only one's own safety but that of bystanders also. |
If these Muslims were less inclined to let the improbability of Mohammed's purported converations with an angel in a cave 1500 years ago impact on their behaviour the subsequent disorder would be much less likely to follow.
Sure, I would always try disuade someone from provoking Muslims, because a disproportionate number of Muslims choose to behave intemperately, and this would likely lead to harm, but there would be no question of who is ultimately responsible for any violence that ensued. Let's not forget that it is Muslims who choose to let the improbablity of a man's claims 1500 years ago regulate their behaviour to such an extent that they would violently pursue those who burn a text chiefly associated with him. By saying 'oh you shoudn't provoke Muslims' we are unlikely to make them ever question the validity of that choice.
The relatives and friends of fallen soldiers who suffered terrible abuse from the Phelps family at the funerals exemplified a dignity that the Muslims in this case would do well to learn from. Despite having the Westboro Baptist church hurl grotesque insults about the soldiers, they did not respond with violence either there, or at a later date. Muslims responding violently on account of mystical beliefs do not get a free pass -they are ultimately responsible.
Last edited by Gwangjuboy on Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:26 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry Sergio but you seem to be supporting the bullies and thugs on this one. I dont believe that is your intent but it comes accross that way. For better or worse the West has decided that we are going to be a multicultural society. That means there is going to be friction between groups, there are going to be some who want to behave violently. We can not begin to condone the use of force or threat of force by one group to infringe on our freedoms. It will never end.
History, recent history , there have been so many cases of where people stood up to the thugs and bullies. Often sacrifices their lives. Perhaps you would not do this, others would. the ones who sacrificed knew that many would think them foolish, they did it any way.
I am not calling moslems thugs or bullies. there are certainly moslems who behave as thugs and bullies. Just as their are Christians who threaten abortion doctors behaving as thugs and bullies.
Of course its not wise to provoke these people, perhaps foolhardy as standing up against the British empire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rollo wrote: |
| We can not begin to condone the use of force or threat of force by one group to infringe on our freedoms. It will never end. |
Nobody has condoned that
| rollo wrote: |
| History, recent history , there have been so many cases of where people stood up to the thugs and bullies. Often sacrifices their lives. Perhaps you would not do this, others would. the ones who sacrificed knew that many would think them foolish, they did it any way |
Again, nice and proportional - comparing someone who draws a cartoon to people who sacrifice their lives in armed conflicts.
| rollo wrote: |
| Of course its not wise to provoke these people, perhaps foolhardy as standing up against the British empire. |
Now he's comparing cartoons to the American Revolution |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think this is relevant to the thread:
| Quote: |
A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.
We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur�an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.
We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.
As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.
The Qur�an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5: ;
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).
Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.
We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.
We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate�not reward them with further attention�by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.
SIGNATORIES:
List of signatories, with names and professions, available at link. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
