164
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Moghul@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

Burning other people's books is of course bad. Burning your own books? Idk man, you bought it.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Moghul@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

The ban isn't on inciting violence, it's on burning a book.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Burning the quran is functionally incitement to violence.

[-] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

As a free speech advocate I will claim your post is an incitement to violence and therefore you should be arrested.

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I wasn't aware that Chamberlain was a judge

[-] gmtom@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Yeah keep stalking my account and reply to every single comment. That will show how well adjusted and sane you are.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago

Sure. Call back when this is regularly a source of widespread social disturbance.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Infidels should be praised

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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?

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Is Islam in some particular way different?

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

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?

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I asked why you associate blasphemy against islam with violence and you are working really hard to not answer the question.

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Do you need me to repeat it again?

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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

[-] Moghul@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Like I said in the other comment, the ban isn't on instigating, it's on burning a book. Also idgaf about the cross

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Look up stochastic terrorism.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Look up appeasement

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Way to completely miss the point

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Congrats on repeating at repeating a bad comparison. Truly the greatest achievement of all time

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
164 points (93.2% liked)

World News

39026 readers
1233 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS