Good. There's no good reason to burn books. Free speech doesn't require absolutism, it requires that we are capable of expressing our ideas. Yelling the N word doesn't express an idea, it's just offense. Ditto book burning.
People who are absolutists are pretty much always being assholes.
Burning other people's books is of course bad. Burning your own books? Idk man, you bought it.
Silly argument at the level of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you". It's not about how you choose to dispose your personal property, it's about regulating a particular political act.
The ban isn't on inciting violence, it's on burning a book.
Burning the quran is functionally incitement to violence.
As a free speech advocate I will claim your post is an incitement to violence and therefore you should be arrested.
Cool, you have every right to do so, but a court woukd likely find that a reasonable person would not consider that comment to be inciting violence.
I wasn't aware that Chamberlain was a judge
Yeah keep stalking my account and reply to every single comment. That will show how well adjusted and sane you are.
Nope.
But you did anyway? 🤨
Not really.
Sure. Call back when this is regularly a source of widespread social disturbance.
Infidels should be praised
Why, is there some reason you associate Islam with violence? I can go ahead and burn a Bible, a Torah, a Mormon Bible, a copy of the Pali Canon and the most danger I am in is getting a strongly worded letter. Is Islam in some particular way different?
People keep arguing from first principles as if politics is an abstract question to be solved by correct application of moral reasoning.
I am not talking about Islam in general. I am not interested in that discussion. I am not talking about abstract ideas. I do not care for top down idealism, I care for bottom up pragmatism.
In empirical practice, in our times and in these societies that we live in, this act has consistently increased the level of animosity, has incited violence, and is specifically being used to do those things on purpose. A democratic society can decide to put reasonable limits to it to protect peace and order. The fact that it remains a democratic society means that it retains its right to undo these limits at an appropriate time if it judges them to be hurtful or useless.
Trust democracy.
Is Islam in some particular way different?
Different than what? The law doesn't single out Islam, it makes it illegal to publicly burn any religious text.
"Is Islam different", such a weird question. As if there is one single "Islam"? And as if there is nothing unique about it, like what, are all religions interchangeable like Coca-Cola and Pepsi? This is an entirely pointless question. Unless you're trying to tease out if I'm an extremist, either an islamophobe or an Islamist? In which case, ask your question directly, I guess?
I asked why you associate blasphemy against islam with violence and you are working really hard to not answer the question.
April 2023 riots in Sweden.
I reject however your framing as an association of Islam with violence. I reject the framing of making it about an entire religion. The framing I'm choosing is one of social peace and what endangers it.
Do you need me to repeat it again?
If I build my own cross and burn it in front of your house, that's cool then?
I don't think it's quite as simple as you imply
Like I said in the other comment, the ban isn't on instigating, it's on burning a book. Also idgaf about the cross
Look up stochastic terrorism.
Look up appeasement
Yeah, since you would be in the street and probably get hit by a vehicle. That would be hilarious. Please do this. Please setup a cross right in the street in front of my house to make your point and get struck by a truck.
Way to completely miss the point
I got your point, such as it is, and it was so clearly bad that mocking it seemed appropriate. There is a difference between targetted harassment of an individual who is a member of the general public and attacking skydaddy. One is a crime with a victim you can identify and the other (like all blasphemy) is a victimless crime. If Allah were real, and not just a plagiarism run through the mind of a warlord genocidal pedophile, it could not be harmed. It could not be afraid. It could not even be resisted. A human can't harm a god, a human can easily hurt a human.
Your entire attempt at comparison was not even worthy of this comment as it was so wrong. If you compared a sneeze to a supernova it would have been closer to comparing fictional Allah to a human. Blasphemy can never ever ever be a crime with a victim.
Now go burn a cross in front of my house, but please make sure to wait a bit as there is still some daylight. I want it to be nice and dark.
The argument I was making was pretty much the kind of reasoning that the Danes are using in their law making. I don't know why you bother even discussing these issues when you are incapable or unwilling of even think about their reasons.
Enjoy fighting strawmen.
Congrats on repeating at repeating a bad comparison. Truly the greatest achievement of all time
You've gone through and responded to each of my posts with accusations and deliberate misundersndings (unless you're genuinely incapable of listening). You seem obsessive. I don't get your attitude. I talk about things to try to communicate. You seem to want to score points.
I'm done with this. I do t see the point of communicating like this.
Blasphemy and racism are two very different things.
Blasphemy is a human right.
Besides, there are already laws against hate speech.
Different issue. I'm not debating categories of speech. I'm saying that speech that expresses no ideas but that is significantly hateful to a group of people shouldn't be protected.
There are trade offs here: offensive speech that expresses political ideas (beyond "we hate you") is worthwhile and should be balanced against offense it may cause. I know this isn't a nice simple black and white answer but I think the real world isn't nice a simple. There are shades of grey. Other countries might weigh the tradeoffs differently and that's fine. Doesn't make this decision wrong, just that the tradeoffs are weighed differently to your intuitions
That's a nice word salad to say you support blasphemy laws.
I don't.
What rules does your skydaddy support?
I'm an atheist and you appear incapable of listening.
So you unambiguously said you support a blasphemy law, but somehow you don't support blasphemy laws? Wake up.
Wtf are you talking about? Show me where I "unambiguously said [I] support a blasphemy law"
I am sorry you are overally sensitive to your skydaddy being insulted
I'm an atheist.
Blasphemy the Holy Ghost then deny the existence of Allah and prove it please. As an atheist you should have zero problems committing the unforgivable sins of the Abrahamic faiths.
Oh FFS I'm not jumping through tour stupid hoops. Clearly not capable of a good faith discussion
Everyone check out the totally real not fake atheist here!
I knew it btw, I knew that anyone advocating cowardly appeasement would have to be afraid of a skydaddy and was so lacking in courage they would even lie.about their beliefs. When the going gets slightly tough we know who hides. Maybe pray harder next time and the zombie-jew will save you ;)
You're an idiot. I feel genuinely sad for you.
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I'm guessing you're not so against.
Its an entirely symbolic gesture.
And what does it symbolise?........
That religion is dogshit and appeasement is cowardly.
Appease these nuts 🤣
Burning religious texts isn't far off burning crosses. It's stochastic terrorism
Citation needed
It's an assertion. Obviously
Citation still needed.
Look up the word assertion
Look up the word appeasement
I absolutely agree.
I don't disagree but I feel like they should just ban publicly burning books for reasons other than waste disposal. I think it's weird to make an exception for one particular religious book
They didn't. It's for all religious texts
Burning religious texts makes skydaddy sad?
You seem determined to be a dick and not bother to understand what people are saying. I don't see the point, but you do you
Good. There's no good reason to burn books. Free speech doesn't require absolutism, it requires that we are capable of expressing our ideas. Yelling the N word doesn't express an idea, it's just offense. Ditto book burning. People who are absolutists are pretty much always being assholes.
Burning other people's books is of course bad. Burning your own books? Idk man, you bought it.
Silly argument at the level of "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you". It's not about how you choose to dispose your personal property, it's about regulating a particular political act.
The ban isn't on inciting violence, it's on burning a book.
Burning the quran is functionally incitement to violence.
As a free speech advocate I will claim your post is an incitement to violence and therefore you should be arrested.
Cool, you have every right to do so, but a court woukd likely find that a reasonable person would not consider that comment to be inciting violence.
I wasn't aware that Chamberlain was a judge
Yeah keep stalking my account and reply to every single comment. That will show how well adjusted and sane you are.
Nope.
But you did anyway? 🤨
Not really.
Sure. Call back when this is regularly a source of widespread social disturbance.
Infidels should be praised
Why, is there some reason you associate Islam with violence? I can go ahead and burn a Bible, a Torah, a Mormon Bible, a copy of the Pali Canon and the most danger I am in is getting a strongly worded letter. Is Islam in some particular way different?
People keep arguing from first principles as if politics is an abstract question to be solved by correct application of moral reasoning.
I am not talking about Islam in general. I am not interested in that discussion. I am not talking about abstract ideas. I do not care for top down idealism, I care for bottom up pragmatism.
In empirical practice, in our times and in these societies that we live in, this act has consistently increased the level of animosity, has incited violence, and is specifically being used to do those things on purpose. A democratic society can decide to put reasonable limits to it to protect peace and order. The fact that it remains a democratic society means that it retains its right to undo these limits at an appropriate time if it judges them to be hurtful or useless.
Trust democracy.
Different than what? The law doesn't single out Islam, it makes it illegal to publicly burn any religious text.
"Is Islam different", such a weird question. As if there is one single "Islam"? And as if there is nothing unique about it, like what, are all religions interchangeable like Coca-Cola and Pepsi? This is an entirely pointless question. Unless you're trying to tease out if I'm an extremist, either an islamophobe or an Islamist? In which case, ask your question directly, I guess?
I asked why you associate blasphemy against islam with violence and you are working really hard to not answer the question.
April 2023 riots in Sweden.
I reject however your framing as an association of Islam with violence. I reject the framing of making it about an entire religion. The framing I'm choosing is one of social peace and what endangers it.
Do you need me to repeat it again?
If I build my own cross and burn it in front of your house, that's cool then? I don't think it's quite as simple as you imply
Like I said in the other comment, the ban isn't on instigating, it's on burning a book. Also idgaf about the cross
Look up stochastic terrorism.
Look up appeasement
Yeah, since you would be in the street and probably get hit by a vehicle. That would be hilarious. Please do this. Please setup a cross right in the street in front of my house to make your point and get struck by a truck.
Way to completely miss the point
I got your point, such as it is, and it was so clearly bad that mocking it seemed appropriate. There is a difference between targetted harassment of an individual who is a member of the general public and attacking skydaddy. One is a crime with a victim you can identify and the other (like all blasphemy) is a victimless crime. If Allah were real, and not just a plagiarism run through the mind of a warlord genocidal pedophile, it could not be harmed. It could not be afraid. It could not even be resisted. A human can't harm a god, a human can easily hurt a human.
Your entire attempt at comparison was not even worthy of this comment as it was so wrong. If you compared a sneeze to a supernova it would have been closer to comparing fictional Allah to a human. Blasphemy can never ever ever be a crime with a victim.
Now go burn a cross in front of my house, but please make sure to wait a bit as there is still some daylight. I want it to be nice and dark.
The argument I was making was pretty much the kind of reasoning that the Danes are using in their law making. I don't know why you bother even discussing these issues when you are incapable or unwilling of even think about their reasons. Enjoy fighting strawmen.
Congrats on repeating at repeating a bad comparison. Truly the greatest achievement of all time
You've gone through and responded to each of my posts with accusations and deliberate misundersndings (unless you're genuinely incapable of listening). You seem obsessive. I don't get your attitude. I talk about things to try to communicate. You seem to want to score points. I'm done with this. I do t see the point of communicating like this.
Blasphemy and racism are two very different things.
Blasphemy is a human right.
Besides, there are already laws against hate speech.
Different issue. I'm not debating categories of speech. I'm saying that speech that expresses no ideas but that is significantly hateful to a group of people shouldn't be protected. There are trade offs here: offensive speech that expresses political ideas (beyond "we hate you") is worthwhile and should be balanced against offense it may cause. I know this isn't a nice simple black and white answer but I think the real world isn't nice a simple. There are shades of grey. Other countries might weigh the tradeoffs differently and that's fine. Doesn't make this decision wrong, just that the tradeoffs are weighed differently to your intuitions
That's a nice word salad to say you support blasphemy laws.
I don't.
What rules does your skydaddy support?
I'm an atheist and you appear incapable of listening.
So you unambiguously said you support a blasphemy law, but somehow you don't support blasphemy laws? Wake up.
Wtf are you talking about? Show me where I "unambiguously said [I] support a blasphemy law"
I am sorry you are overally sensitive to your skydaddy being insulted
I'm an atheist.
Blasphemy the Holy Ghost then deny the existence of Allah and prove it please. As an atheist you should have zero problems committing the unforgivable sins of the Abrahamic faiths.
Oh FFS I'm not jumping through tour stupid hoops. Clearly not capable of a good faith discussion
Everyone check out the totally real not fake atheist here!
I knew it btw, I knew that anyone advocating cowardly appeasement would have to be afraid of a skydaddy and was so lacking in courage they would even lie.about their beliefs. When the going gets slightly tough we know who hides. Maybe pray harder next time and the zombie-jew will save you ;)
You're an idiot. I feel genuinely sad for you.
Book burnings are bad when they are used to prevent the free sharing of information or ideas. It is a form of censorship. Burning the Quran is not censorship, because this is not an attempt to ban the Quran or prevent anyone from reading it. Its an entirely symbolic gesture. Its comparable to burning the American flag, which I'm guessing you're not so against.
And what does it symbolise?........
That religion is dogshit and appeasement is cowardly.
Appease these nuts 🤣
Burning religious texts isn't far off burning crosses. It's stochastic terrorism
Citation needed
It's an assertion. Obviously
Citation still needed.
Look up the word assertion
Look up the word appeasement
I absolutely agree.
I don't disagree but I feel like they should just ban publicly burning books for reasons other than waste disposal. I think it's weird to make an exception for one particular religious book
They didn't. It's for all religious texts
Burning religious texts makes skydaddy sad?
You seem determined to be a dick and not bother to understand what people are saying. I don't see the point, but you do you