qoran burning the sequel

[Chronictank]

But that isn't the point. Your argument is not logical in any shape or form.

I know it doesn't, that was the point i was trying to get across..

 

[ford prefect]

There is evidence of banking going back to 3000 BC which pre-dates monetary systems, the ancient Bablyons used temples to deposit grain and other consumables, in return for interest based in commidities they were short of.

 

[Wij]

I know it doesn't, that was the point i was trying to get across..

Your argument doesn't fail because it is the same as Corran's. It isn't even similar. Your argument fails because of a category mistake. It doesn't address Corran's argument at all.

 

[Corran]

So your hatred for the incitement of violence and hate would lead you to carryout your own hateful act which could incite to violence? That is some odd leap of logic there.

Not all religious people are violent, the vast majority of them are not. Some supporters of political parties have been known to kill the supporters of their adversaries - should politics be banned too?

I just think it would be interesting to see the reaction to someone burning every religious text if this is the result of someone burning a single religions text. They wouldnt be able to say that a religion is being singled out by the behaviour and therefore I would be interested to see what route the arguements would take.

I have distaste for all religions, people are often too fixated in the religious texts and totally misinterpret what is there.

And it depends on the situation as to the politics. When you look at some political parties then they should be banned, but without it you merely have dictatorships which generally arent good for anyone but the person in control. So <shrug>.

The main problem in this world is the flaws of humanity. We can take anything which is meant to be a benefit and turn it into a reason to fight.