It’s a law that protects religious books in a way non-religious books aren’t, just because it offends religious people.
I don’t understand how that’s not a blasphemy law, Book Edition.
What you can’t do, is grab the microphone and say muslims are subhuman worthless rats that does nothing but chug camel-piss and beat their wives.
But that has nothing to do with book burnings, no? Either that was already illegal hate speech or it won’t even be affected by this new law.
Book burnings should stay legal exactly because they aren’t degrading anyone. Just an object. They are only inciting violence from the very religious POV that the books themselves hold the rights a person has. But they don’t - and they shouldn’t. Comparing violence towards things with violence towards people is simply being dishonest, or in the worst case it means adopting the perspective of religious extremists.
Book burnings should stay legal exactly because they aren’t degrading anyone.
So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.
That’s a very strange take, given that we’ve all seen what the reactions of Muslims around the world has been. A fair amount of them clearly feel very strongly about this. It is after all, their, scripture.
It’s not just extremists that are upset. We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence, But just because they want something doesn’t mean there isn’t other good reasons to do it.
But that has nothing to do with book burnings, no? Either that was already illegal hate speech or it won’t even be affected by this new law.
It has everything to do with incitement against ethnic groups. Which is exactly what they’re trying to expand
They are only inciting violence from the very religious POV that the books themselves
Yes! That is. Incitement against ethnic groups. You’re targeting a specific ethnic group with your action, and you provoke and insult them for belonging to that group.
Just like if you burn an Italian flag outside of the embassy of Italy. Italians would rightfully be upset. So you’re not allowed to do that. Or will you use the same logic there “they are only inciting violence from the very Italian POV that the flag themselves”?
You still don’t seem to understand, you will be able to burn any good damn book you want. Just not in public. Not in the town square. Not outside of an embassy.
They’re not telling you can’t do it. They’re telling you where, you can’t do it.
You will still have the freedom as an individual, to go into your back yard, and burn as many books as your heart desires. Hell, you can even invite all of your friend so they can come and watch you burn books.
The public act is exactly what should stay legal. This is not a debate about fire hazards and matters of insurance after all, it is about the right of expression, and that is a debate about behavior in public.
So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.
They have the right to feel like however they like. You for example are free to feel sad, angry, happy, horny, offended, relieved, or anxious about this comment of mine. But none of those are what I intent to incite. So you feeling one way about my comment shouldn’t be the only consideration when it comes to questioning if my comment should be legal. It shouldn’t be disregarded altogether either - but the right of expression is an incredibly important legal asset, and such a trade off shouldn’t be made lightly.
A book burning with calls to violence against humans - that, definitely, should be (and is) illegal. A book burning as an expression of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” - that is not a call to violence, that is a valid expression of your democratic rights. Intent matters.
We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit. You are constrained by the laws governing your country. And believe me. There are laws against certain types of expression.
Burning forgein flags is a form of expression. You are not allowed to do that in public. But I don’t see you going on about how it’s infringing on your freedom.
You quote half of what I said to then reply that “but in effect we are”.
Had you quoted the entire thing, the answer and retort is already there. If you don’t sleep at least 5 hours in the next 5 days I will spit at your house and piss on your cat.
Are you giving in on my demand by sleeping at night? Or is it because of other, unrelated reasons?
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public? Do you typically attend book burnings? Is that some holiday you have that you need to preserve. You go out and burn a Bible every other week?
Or is this a thing that no one does. Except those who wish to provoke and insult? Can you mention any book burnings in recent times in Denmark that was not about provoking and insulting?
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit.
I agree. You’re mistaken if you think this is what I ask for. I’m saying the consideration of weighting individual freedoms against each other mustn’t be taken lightly and in this specific case the freedom of expression should win.
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
My actual argument is this: When it comes to book burnings, since there’s no harm done to anyone and no call to harming anyone either, the freedom of expression should be given priority over religious sensitivities. This would be different if there was something harmful being done or incited, but the only things that really are in danger here are books and the only people taking offense with that are people who think specific objects should be treated as more than a book by everyone in- and outside of their religion.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public?
Never, but that would be an extraordinarily bad argument for or against any kind of freedom.
Yeah, reading the article you want to comment on is difficult. Requires actually putting in 10 minutes of effort instead of just being outraged at a headline
deleted by creator
But you knew that, because you read the article you commented on, right?
deleted by creator
They want to add it for holy scriptures in general. So your book of the flying spaghettimonster should be protected, too.
How does that make it better?
It’s a law that protects religious books in a way non-religious books aren’t, just because it offends religious people. I don’t understand how that’s not a blasphemy law, Book Edition.
It’s not a question of blasphemy. It’s a question of incitement against ethnic/religious groups.
You can get a permit, grab a speaker. And talk about how the islam is doing this bad thing, that bad thing, and those bad things.
What you can’t do, is grab the microphone and say muslims are subhuman worthless rats that does nothing but chug camel-piss and beat their wives.
It’s not blasphemous, it’s incitement against an ethnic group.
This would probably fall under the same category if they pass it. As of now, It’s just a proposition to be voted on
But that has nothing to do with book burnings, no? Either that was already illegal hate speech or it won’t even be affected by this new law.
Book burnings should stay legal exactly because they aren’t degrading anyone. Just an object. They are only inciting violence from the very religious POV that the books themselves hold the rights a person has. But they don’t - and they shouldn’t. Comparing violence towards things with violence towards people is simply being dishonest, or in the worst case it means adopting the perspective of religious extremists.
So, you’re going to decide that no one can feel degraded by having their religious scripture burned, just because you can’t comprehend the feelings others.
That’s a very strange take, given that we’ve all seen what the reactions of Muslims around the world has been. A fair amount of them clearly feel very strongly about this. It is after all, their, scripture.
It’s not just extremists that are upset. We should not give in to extremeists demands under threat of violence, But just because they want something doesn’t mean there isn’t other good reasons to do it.
It has everything to do with incitement against ethnic groups. Which is exactly what they’re trying to expand
Yes! That is. Incitement against ethnic groups. You’re targeting a specific ethnic group with your action, and you provoke and insult them for belonging to that group.
Just like if you burn an Italian flag outside of the embassy of Italy. Italians would rightfully be upset. So you’re not allowed to do that. Or will you use the same logic there “they are only inciting violence from the very Italian POV that the flag themselves”?
You still don’t seem to understand, you will be able to burn any good damn book you want. Just not in public. Not in the town square. Not outside of an embassy.
They’re not telling you can’t do it. They’re telling you where, you can’t do it.
You will still have the freedom as an individual, to go into your back yard, and burn as many books as your heart desires. Hell, you can even invite all of your friend so they can come and watch you burn books.
The public act is exactly what should stay legal. This is not a debate about fire hazards and matters of insurance after all, it is about the right of expression, and that is a debate about behavior in public.
They have the right to feel like however they like. You for example are free to feel sad, angry, happy, horny, offended, relieved, or anxious about this comment of mine. But none of those are what I intent to incite. So you feeling one way about my comment shouldn’t be the only consideration when it comes to questioning if my comment should be legal. It shouldn’t be disregarded altogether either - but the right of expression is an incredibly important legal asset, and such a trade off shouldn’t be made lightly.
A book burning with calls to violence against humans - that, definitely, should be (and is) illegal. A book burning as an expression of “we don’t negotiate with terrorists” - that is not a call to violence, that is a valid expression of your democratic rights. Intent matters.
But in effect, if this law gets ratified, we are.
What you’re debating and arguing for does not exist. You do NOT have the right to express yourself in any way you see fit. You are constrained by the laws governing your country. And believe me. There are laws against certain types of expression.
Burning forgein flags is a form of expression. You are not allowed to do that in public. But I don’t see you going on about how it’s infringing on your freedom.
You quote half of what I said to then reply that “but in effect we are”.
Had you quoted the entire thing, the answer and retort is already there. If you don’t sleep at least 5 hours in the next 5 days I will spit at your house and piss on your cat.
Are you giving in on my demand by sleeping at night? Or is it because of other, unrelated reasons?
Your whole argument of, I should be allowed to express myself in any way shape or form that I see fit. Is not a good one. Because you do not have that right.
How many times have you gone out and burned books in public? Do you typically attend book burnings? Is that some holiday you have that you need to preserve. You go out and burn a Bible every other week?
Or is this a thing that no one does. Except those who wish to provoke and insult? Can you mention any book burnings in recent times in Denmark that was not about provoking and insulting?
I agree. You’re mistaken if you think this is what I ask for. I’m saying the consideration of weighting individual freedoms against each other mustn’t be taken lightly and in this specific case the freedom of expression should win.
My actual argument is this: When it comes to book burnings, since there’s no harm done to anyone and no call to harming anyone either, the freedom of expression should be given priority over religious sensitivities. This would be different if there was something harmful being done or incited, but the only things that really are in danger here are books and the only people taking offense with that are people who think specific objects should be treated as more than a book by everyone in- and outside of their religion.
Never, but that would be an extraordinarily bad argument for or against any kind of freedom.
O superior one, we thank thee for thy presence
Yeah, reading the article you want to comment on is difficult. Requires actually putting in 10 minutes of effort instead of just being outraged at a headline
Ah yes wise one. If only we could be like thee, we would know th danish government promises to not do worse!