Why dictate what someone can and can't do with their own property?
I get this argument, I really do, but it's very much the same thing as "free speech absolutism" that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you're using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare "should not be protected" but don't provide any justification, that's not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what's next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won't stop just by creating one law.
You declare “should not be protected” but don’t provide any justification
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad
:. advocating for violence is bad
and inciting violence is bad
:. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
what’s next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet?
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you're not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
Violence is bad
Burning a book you bought isn't violence.
advocating for violence is bad
Same.
speech that intentionally does either should not be protected
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Who gets to decide that? You? You're advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests "have no value", "there's no good reason", or "the majority are against it".
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
It's absolutely not. You're being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended
But a person's right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Its actually really easy if you’re not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
No, you're just not thinking of the implications of this law, you're pro-appeasement.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn't only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I'm providing it either way so there isn't an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it's questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
Who gets to decide that? You?
What don't you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We're not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn't been done before.
It's absolutely not. You're being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
But a person's right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can't do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people's property, you can burn your house down. If there's a residence you can't legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn't obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it'd be hate speach (most likely at least, but it'd be up to the court to decide. If you're not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
This would be protected under free speech.
I'm unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people's property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That's obvious.
Maybe I don't burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?
Because they are using it to incite violence and hate. I'm big on the fuck all religions bandwagon but burning a religious text in front of said religious group is just being a dick.
We tell people they can't do stuff with their property all the time, if it's affecting their surroundings negatively as is clearly the case.
It's also always the same book that gets burned, there's clearly a heavy undercurrent of xenophobia. You wouldn't be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
Why can't religious people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums over everything they don't like?
Because politicians and ideologues that use religion as their tool want them to stay childlike
I partly agree but this is about personal responsibility. If someone is trying to provoke you, your reaction is entirely your decision. Someone burning your holy book didn't "make" you retaliate. You made this decision yourself and should own the consequences.
It reminds me of the rationale for requiring women in some countries to cover their faces, lest the sight of an uncovered female face "makes" the men rape the woman.
Why can't free speech absolutists just grow up instead of throwing irate tamper tantrums on forums over being asked to show a modicum of respect to other people?
I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but I have to side with them on this one.
I will show a modicum of respect the day they show they're taking ANY measure to actually try and stop violence, and stop sending and carrying out threats. And I believe it's of utmost importance that we don't change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
they
Who? Be precise, please. The kind of Muslims who react to the burnings by announcing that they're going to gift free Qurans? Those kinds of muslims?
And I believe it’s of utmost importance that we don’t change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
Over here we do have laws against revilement of religion -- not blasphemy, not disagreeing, but revilement. They were introduced after the 30 year war to make sure both Catholics and Lutherans would cool it down.
You don't make people less irate by stoking the flames. Stop believing in such nonsense. What you have to do is take away the fuel.
I find the idea of the government using violence to force me to show respect to ideas I abhor disgusting.
"modicum of respect" such as not spitting someone in the face. As such actually more in the sense of "don't egregiously insult".
Why can’t trans people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t women just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t jews/muslims/insert group of your choice grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
See how fucking stupid you sound?
Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it. Period.
What are you on about? Religion is a mental illness forced on children through abuse. No one is born with it. It's not a choice. Why should these violent maniacs dictate policy for normal people?
You're the one sounding like a deranged maniac now
Wow dude, wow. You are the one that actually belongs in a mental asylum.
Seek help, seriously.
Why? I don't have any delusions and I don't perform ritualistic genital mutilation on infants. Please explain yourself.
Nah. I’m good. But go see a therapist please.
Many psychology professionals agree with me on this issue though.
What psychology professionals?
The atheist ones presumably
That's not even an argument, let alone a persuasive one.
Please name some instances when a trans person or woman has thrown a violent tantrum and ended up killing more than ten people. These issues are far from being equal or even comparable.
Not mentioning something that was done in a certain school by a trans person because they didn't like what they said about them
That’s not the point of my comment is it?
If you feel your comment did not adequately convey your intentions, you can always clarify the intended meaning.
It did and it was the last few lines of my comment.
“Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it.”
The rest of the responses to my comment have been a combination of bad faith arguments and deflections, which is why it’s not worth responding especially when people have their minds made up.
If a group of people aren’t going to stop harassing another set of people just because they belong to a certain religion, it’s incumbent on a government to step in and pass legislation that prevents/discourages it. I’m not sure why this is confusing to literally any sane minded individual.
You wouldn’t be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
Can you expand on this assumption for me?
Yes, burning a Koran in front of Muslims is a dick move but it shouldn't be against the law in a secular Western country.
There would be a justified outcry if a Torah was burned in front of a synagogue. The instigators would quickly be villefied and called Nazis. At the minimum, no one would be actively defending it.
It shouldn't have to be against the law, but people are abusing to the point of starting riots. It's disturbing the peace. I lump this in with following people and screaming racial slurs constantly at the top of your lungs. Freedom of speech only goes so far, I'm okay with banning clear hate speech and similar actions.
It makes no difference to me if someone is burning a Torah, Koran, Bible, or any other religious text, as long as it's their property they can do whatever they want with it.
I think we're placing too much emphasis on the person being provocative and acting like a dick and not nearly enough on the people who resort to violence over these provocations.
What about burning crosses on someone's lawn, or flying Nazi flags? Lmao, they could just not burn the damn book. Usually, people being dicks don't have a army of people coming to their defence.
Obviously you don't care, you aren't the one being personally attacked so you can just overlook it. But if this happened in a vaccum, you wouldn't be defending the Nazi burning a Torah infront of a synagogue yet here we are.
Look, I hate the policies in the middle east as well, but I'm able to differentiate between individuals and governments. This is Muslim hate and nothing else.
What about burning crosses on someone’s lawn
That would be their property, not yours.
No one is upset about people burning a Koran in their backyard firepit. The example is very similar to what is happening.
What about burning a cross on your own front lawn where your Black neighbours have a clear view of it through their own front windows?
You should stop trying to misrepresent my position, it doesn't help you at all.
If an asshole is trying to get a rise by burning things the worst thing to do is to give them what they want. Where I live we have an old guy who regularly flies the confederate flag. He's a sick old fuck who only wants attention, or better yet, a chance to shoot someone if they try and take the flag down. What can be done?
The only solution that makes sense is to ignore the loser and not give him the attention he so badly needs.
"Allowing women to drive is starting riots, it's disturbing the peace, we must outlaw it"
Burning an item be it a flag or a book is a quintessential form of free speech. It's a clear way of expressing discontent towards an idea.
Controversial speech is the most important kind of free speech. If we only allowed speech we agreed with society wouldn't advance and grow.
Ideas like 'Women should get to vote' once were controversial and that expression might have been met in an incendiary manner by it's opponents, none the less that speech was important to protect.
If you only support free speech for ideals you agree with you don't support free speech at all.
But not all speech is protected speech. The same should be true here. Like as an extreme example, should the KKK be allowed to burn a cross outside a black person's house?
On that black man's lawn? No. On their own? Knock themselves out.
Like I said if you draw the line at the ends of your own beliefs you don't believe in free speech. I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk's) conclusion on that matter.
Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don't have merit.
I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk's) conclusion on that matter.
Then I would say you are incredibly incredibly incredibly naive, to the point where I don't think you've actually put any thought into it, or a purposefully and wilfully ignorant of all the very blatant and obvious examples where the opposite has happened. Including the very example I gave of thr KKK, as well as antisemitism in the 20th century leading to nazism and concentration camps. Or how about how we've gone from nobody caring about trans people to them having their rights denied across several states. Or how about vaccines going from routine healthcare to a massive hot topic because people pushed it as an agenda.
Do you actually have faith in the general public? Or is the whole "Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don't have merit." Just the canned response you've been given to justify this fetishism version of free speech?
I never suggested that those changes would be instant. You point out concentration camps, racism, & antisemitism as counterpoints. But they are more widely accepted to be wrong today then they've been historically in no small part due to their opponents speaking out against them.
I'd counter do you faith in yourself to make the right conclusion when presented all the information? Have you never changed your stance? If you have what makes you better than the general public?
Why dictate what someone can and can't do with their own property?
I get this argument, I really do, but it's very much the same thing as "free speech absolutism" that the right uses to justify doing whatever they want.
Yes free speech is important, but certain things should not be protected.
Yes doing what you want with your property is important, but some things should not be protected.
If you're using either right to call for violence, escalate violence or intentionally goad people into violence, you should not be protected imo.
You declare "should not be protected" but don't provide any justification, that's not a persuasive argument to me.
Where does it end? If burning only certain books is now illegal, what's next? Should we ban people from drawing the prophet? If a gay couple are holding hands and a muslim takes offense, should be ban those couples from public displays of affection?
This is appeasement and it won't stop just by creating one law.
I would think the argument speaks for itself, but i forget what kind of people im arguing with so ill give you the full justification.
Violence is bad :. advocating for violence is bad and inciting violence is bad :. speech that intentionally does either should not be protected.
is that better?
This is just a slippery slope fallacy.
Is there any reason to other than to offend muslims? Does that offence have any value to anyone? If an act has no positive value for anyone society or good reason for someone to do it and a large portion of society doesnt like it, then personally I would not care if it was banned.
Obviously not, because a persons right to exist as they are supersedes someones right to not be offended and gay people dont exist and hold hands for the sole purpose of offending muslims.
Its actually really easy if you're not being purposefully obtuse to try and prove a point.
Burning a book you bought isn't violence.
Same.
No speech, just the act of burning a book. Try and stick to the topic at hand.
Who gets to decide that? You? You're advocating for going down a very dangerous path here. Any wannabe authoritarian starts by silencing dissent because protests "have no value", "there's no good reason", or "the majority are against it".
It's absolutely not. You're being incredibly naive if you think passing this law will be a solution to this problem. There will always be further demands.
But a person's right to do what they wish with their own property does not?
No, you're just not thinking of the implications of this law, you're pro-appeasement.
This would be protected under free speech. Speech doesn't only include things spoken when we use these terms. I don't know if you're being purposefully obtuse or actually ignorant of this information, but I'm providing it either way so there isn't an excuse.
Most of the time speech is protected, which includes many things like protests and things like that, not just speech. Sometimes it is not. For example, it's questionable that the speech Trump gave before the January 6th riots are considered protected speech or are not protected because they were calls to violent action.
What don't you get about this. The court gets to decide, and their decision is based on how the law is written. We're not just saying random people getting offended get to decide. None of this is a weird process that hasn't been done before.
The slippery slope falicy is when you start at one point and then it moves to an extreme without any reasonable way to reach that extreme from that first step. Having a law that limits burning certain books in a fashion designed to encourage violence without having a purpose has no relation to banning public displays of affection.
Not totally, no. There are plenty of things you can't do with your property. For the US: If you live near other people's property, you can burn your house down. If there's a residence you can't legally fire a firearm within a certain distance of it (though this often isn't obeyed, especially in rural areas where literally no one else is around). You can put up a cross and burn it because it'd be hate speach (most likely at least, but it'd be up to the court to decide. If you're not from the US, this is what the KKK did.) There are tons of rules you have to follow that restrict what you can do with your property.
I'm unfamiliar with Danish law so I was trying not to get into the specifics. Can you cite the relevant legislation?
It absolutely does if you consider my entirely reasonable point that passing this law will not be the end of the matter. There will always be further demands. To not consider this is naive.
As to your last point. There are laws in place to protect other people's property which prohibit what you can do with yours. That's obvious.
Maybe I don't burn the book. Maybe I rip pages out of it or otherwise deface it. Should those actions also be illegal?
Because they are using it to incite violence and hate. I'm big on the fuck all religions bandwagon but burning a religious text in front of said religious group is just being a dick.
We tell people they can't do stuff with their property all the time, if it's affecting their surroundings negatively as is clearly the case.
It's also always the same book that gets burned, there's clearly a heavy undercurrent of xenophobia. You wouldn't be asking this question if it was a Torah instead.
Why can't religious people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums over everything they don't like?
Because politicians and ideologues that use religion as their tool want them to stay childlike
I partly agree but this is about personal responsibility. If someone is trying to provoke you, your reaction is entirely your decision. Someone burning your holy book didn't "make" you retaliate. You made this decision yourself and should own the consequences.
It reminds me of the rationale for requiring women in some countries to cover their faces, lest the sight of an uncovered female face "makes" the men rape the woman.
Why can't free speech absolutists just grow up instead of throwing irate tamper tantrums on forums over being asked to show a modicum of respect to other people?
I'm by no means a free speech absolutist, but I have to side with them on this one.
I will show a modicum of respect the day they show they're taking ANY measure to actually try and stop violence, and stop sending and carrying out threats. And I believe it's of utmost importance that we don't change our laws BECAUSE of those THREATS.
Who? Be precise, please. The kind of Muslims who react to the burnings by announcing that they're going to gift free Qurans? Those kinds of muslims?
Over here we do have laws against revilement of religion -- not blasphemy, not disagreeing, but revilement. They were introduced after the 30 year war to make sure both Catholics and Lutherans would cool it down.
You don't make people less irate by stoking the flames. Stop believing in such nonsense. What you have to do is take away the fuel.
I find the idea of the government using violence to force me to show respect to ideas I abhor disgusting.
"modicum of respect" such as not spitting someone in the face. As such actually more in the sense of "don't egregiously insult".
Why can’t trans people just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t women just grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
Why can’t jews/muslims/insert group of your choice grow up instead of throwing violent tantrums?
See how fucking stupid you sound?
Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it. Period.
What are you on about? Religion is a mental illness forced on children through abuse. No one is born with it. It's not a choice. Why should these violent maniacs dictate policy for normal people?
You're the one sounding like a deranged maniac now
Wow dude, wow. You are the one that actually belongs in a mental asylum.
Seek help, seriously.
Why? I don't have any delusions and I don't perform ritualistic genital mutilation on infants. Please explain yourself.
Nah. I’m good. But go see a therapist please.
Many psychology professionals agree with me on this issue though.
What psychology professionals?
The atheist ones presumably
That's not even an argument, let alone a persuasive one.
Please name some instances when a trans person or woman has thrown a violent tantrum and ended up killing more than ten people. These issues are far from being equal or even comparable.
Not mentioning something that was done in a certain school by a trans person because they didn't like what they said about them
That’s not the point of my comment is it?
If you feel your comment did not adequately convey your intentions, you can always clarify the intended meaning.
It did and it was the last few lines of my comment.
“Equality means equality and we shouldn’t be selective about enforcing it. If a group of people are offended by something, grow the fuck up and stop doing it.”
The rest of the responses to my comment have been a combination of bad faith arguments and deflections, which is why it’s not worth responding especially when people have their minds made up.
If a group of people aren’t going to stop harassing another set of people just because they belong to a certain religion, it’s incumbent on a government to step in and pass legislation that prevents/discourages it. I’m not sure why this is confusing to literally any sane minded individual.
Can you expand on this assumption for me?
Yes, burning a Koran in front of Muslims is a dick move but it shouldn't be against the law in a secular Western country.
There would be a justified outcry if a Torah was burned in front of a synagogue. The instigators would quickly be villefied and called Nazis. At the minimum, no one would be actively defending it.
It shouldn't have to be against the law, but people are abusing to the point of starting riots. It's disturbing the peace. I lump this in with following people and screaming racial slurs constantly at the top of your lungs. Freedom of speech only goes so far, I'm okay with banning clear hate speech and similar actions.
It makes no difference to me if someone is burning a Torah, Koran, Bible, or any other religious text, as long as it's their property they can do whatever they want with it.
I think we're placing too much emphasis on the person being provocative and acting like a dick and not nearly enough on the people who resort to violence over these provocations.
What about burning crosses on someone's lawn, or flying Nazi flags? Lmao, they could just not burn the damn book. Usually, people being dicks don't have a army of people coming to their defence.
Obviously you don't care, you aren't the one being personally attacked so you can just overlook it. But if this happened in a vaccum, you wouldn't be defending the Nazi burning a Torah infront of a synagogue yet here we are.
Look, I hate the policies in the middle east as well, but I'm able to differentiate between individuals and governments. This is Muslim hate and nothing else.
That would be their property, not yours.
No one is upset about people burning a Koran in their backyard firepit. The example is very similar to what is happening.
To build on @Jaded's analogy,
What about burning a cross on your own front lawn where your Black neighbours have a clear view of it through their own front windows?
You should stop trying to misrepresent my position, it doesn't help you at all.
If an asshole is trying to get a rise by burning things the worst thing to do is to give them what they want. Where I live we have an old guy who regularly flies the confederate flag. He's a sick old fuck who only wants attention, or better yet, a chance to shoot someone if they try and take the flag down. What can be done?
The only solution that makes sense is to ignore the loser and not give him the attention he so badly needs.
"Allowing women to drive is starting riots, it's disturbing the peace, we must outlaw it"
Burning an item be it a flag or a book is a quintessential form of free speech. It's a clear way of expressing discontent towards an idea.
Controversial speech is the most important kind of free speech. If we only allowed speech we agreed with society wouldn't advance and grow.
Ideas like 'Women should get to vote' once were controversial and that expression might have been met in an incendiary manner by it's opponents, none the less that speech was important to protect.
If you only support free speech for ideals you agree with you don't support free speech at all.
But not all speech is protected speech. The same should be true here. Like as an extreme example, should the KKK be allowed to burn a cross outside a black person's house?
On that black man's lawn? No. On their own? Knock themselves out.
Like I said if you draw the line at the ends of your own beliefs you don't believe in free speech. I have enough faith in the general public to come to the correct (read: not the kkk's) conclusion on that matter.
Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don't have merit.
Then I would say you are incredibly incredibly incredibly naive, to the point where I don't think you've actually put any thought into it, or a purposefully and wilfully ignorant of all the very blatant and obvious examples where the opposite has happened. Including the very example I gave of thr KKK, as well as antisemitism in the 20th century leading to nazism and concentration camps. Or how about how we've gone from nobody caring about trans people to them having their rights denied across several states. Or how about vaccines going from routine healthcare to a massive hot topic because people pushed it as an agenda.
Do you actually have faith in the general public? Or is the whole "Let them speak, and the world will hear their points don't have merit." Just the canned response you've been given to justify this fetishism version of free speech?
I never suggested that those changes would be instant. You point out concentration camps, racism, & antisemitism as counterpoints. But they are more widely accepted to be wrong today then they've been historically in no small part due to their opponents speaking out against them.
I'd counter do you faith in yourself to make the right conclusion when presented all the information? Have you never changed your stance? If you have what makes you better than the general public?