I see your point, Laura, but the media was doing what the media does--reporting the news. If they are found culpable, then so should the public who consumes the news, and to the companies who pay to advertise with the outlets who publish the reports. Where do we draw the line? Do we censor the media? How far should we go with that? What sorts of stories would be off-limits? Who should get to hear the stories to determine who else gets to know what is going on in the world? Maybe there is an ethical line that was crossed, maybe not, but the person who started the mess was Jones.
Answer by jsbenkert at 7:20 PM on Apr. 5, 2011
Answer by Dr.Donna at 4:07 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
While he's not directly responsible for the actions of those who participated in the riots, he knew full-well what the implications of his actions might be. He was warned--our military said that burning the Quran would endanger the lives of our civilians and military in that region, and he did it anyway. He is responsible for that reason. Sure, one could argue that he wasn't the one rioting and killing, but he burned the Quran with the intention of inciting a reaction, and that's what he got.
Jones isn't an innocent babe in this. He knew what he was doing, and the potential for a strong reaction from those he offended by intentionally burning their holy book. He is culpable, without a doubt in my mind.
Answer by jsbenkert at 4:37 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
Answer by Freela at 4:46 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
He is responsible because our military, who has some knowledge of how other societies work, warned him that burning the Quran could have this effect. He knew that he would draw media attention. He knew that word would spread that he burned the Quran, and he had knowledge that in doing so, he could endanger the lives of our own people. If it were a fluke--if he didn't seek media attention, or if he hadn't been warned, I might agree that he wasn't as responsible as I think he is. But he did know that burning the Quran would incite outrage, and that was his aim. That knowledge makes him culpable.
Answer by jsbenkert at 5:01 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
No gem it is not the same. You are not told by your child if you only use time outs, if you spank me, if you bf or ff I will go out and murder a bunch of people. This guy was told by multiple reliable sources what would happen if he did this and did it any way. This is more like a situation with an oil company not using proper shut off valves because the law does not require them too, but knowing full well if there is an oil spill they are going to destroy the coast. In this situation however he triggered the spill.
Answer by Alanaplus3 at 12:08 AM on Apr. 5, 2011
Answer by gemgem at 4:10 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
The analogy I used in a similar question in the P&CE section is this: If we were to put a known child molester in with a group of children, and some of those children are harmed, aren't we culpable along with the molester? We knew what he was capable of, and even though he's the one molesting, he's the one actually committing the crime, we knew that it was a strong possibility that he would harm those children. Because we knew of the danger, but put the children in harm's way anyway, we would bear a great deal of the responsibility, just as Jones does in this case.
Answer by jsbenkert at 4:39 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
Answer by charlotsomtimes at 5:23 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
Answer by bandgeek521 at 4:37 PM on Apr. 4, 2011
Next question overall
Nakedness, should your older child see your younger one naked?
Check out some of the top posts today in Groups: