The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country's effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
I can’t believe people are arguing for burning books here like medieval morons. Torah, Quran, Bible, Encyclopedia, doesn’t matter. If it incites violence and civil unrest, it should be controlled and people should be discouraged from it. This is no different than literally any other law. Wtf?
This isn’t about personal property. It’s about curbing and stopping acts that cause civil unrest.
Stop trying to guise this as some personal property/rights infringement non-sense.
The fact that people are arguing for it here just shows that some of these folks here don’t really believe in equal rights and a just society. If you’re religious and/or Muslim, and a law introduced to protect your sentiments, then it is “unfair”.
Do you really think those 2 positions are equivalent?
Like the difference between somebody being racist and somebody being offended by an action designed to offend them? Also plenty of religions don’t like certain groups and protest about them but we don’t give in because the world is not black and white like that. Conceding that maybe allowing people to burn religious texts of the biggest religions in the world for the sole purpose of offending those people is not a productive thing to allow in a modern society does not mean we must then concede every demand any religious body makes.
If there’s a group of people with a legitimate concern, a government should hear you out and make an assessment.
You as a single person can choose to do whatever you want within reason and what’s permitted by law.
You can continue to misconstrue this further however you like, but burning books is barbaric. We’re past that point as civilized society. But feel free to continue to argue for it behind the veneer of “freedom” or whatever else you can come up with.
Loud concerts are about proximity. I’d definitely say no burning a Bible in front of a church. But if you can be easily ignored by the offended party, then you shouldn’t be stopped.
Some people believe that women should be under the supervision of a man at all times. Not doing so might incite civil unrest. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at no appeasements because unless people have it their they will keep complaining. Teaching them that outrage gets results is a moral hazard.
People can chose to believe whatever they want. It’s the actions and the consequences that matter in a society. If burning a book becomes an act of inciting violence, then it should be reviewed, discussed and a law should come out of it as a consequence which discourages such an act. That’s how civilized societies should work which deem equality as a fundamental right for everyone.
Your hypothetical scenario is just that and we can spend days going back and forth. We are talking about a real problem here.
Ok so in your views the consequences of appeasement are hypothetical. And we should continuously consider what needs to be changed and empower those who commit violence to effect more changes to suit their beliefs.
In reality the consequences can be more severe than whatever you sought to prevent
I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous
Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.
I can’t believe people are arguing for burning books here like medieval morons. Torah, Quran, Bible, Encyclopedia, doesn’t matter. If it incites violence and civil unrest, it should be controlled and people should be discouraged from it. This is no different than literally any other law. Wtf?
“The government should control all of our actions to prevent civil unrest, it’s for the greater good!”
Can people stop trying to reduce the real world to absurd black and white positions??
Like you could use this smooth brained argument to the extreme to protest literally any law ever.
Good, any law should be able to be scrutinized and protested by the citizens the law affects.
“The government should allow me to shoot people in the face, because otherwise it’s stepping on my personal freedoms”
Stop trying to justify xenophobia and/or dislike for religion.
Don’t be absurd. In what way are you impairing anyone else’s rights by destroying your own property?
This isn’t about personal property. It’s about curbing and stopping acts that cause civil unrest.
Stop trying to guise this as some personal property/rights infringement non-sense.
The fact that people are arguing for it here just shows that some of these folks here don’t really believe in equal rights and a just society. If you’re religious and/or Muslim, and a law introduced to protect your sentiments, then it is “unfair”.
If what one person does with their own property, causing physical harm to no-one, incites others to civil unrest, the problem lies with the others.
So if I cause enough of a problem I can bend the will of the government.
I’m going to create a religion that gets offended that you exist, and we’ll riot until that’s illegal then?
Do you really think those 2 positions are equivalent?
Like the difference between somebody being racist and somebody being offended by an action designed to offend them? Also plenty of religions don’t like certain groups and protest about them but we don’t give in because the world is not black and white like that. Conceding that maybe allowing people to burn religious texts of the biggest religions in the world for the sole purpose of offending those people is not a productive thing to allow in a modern society does not mean we must then concede every demand any religious body makes.
If there’s a group of people with a legitimate concern, a government should hear you out and make an assessment.
You as a single person can choose to do whatever you want within reason and what’s permitted by law.
You can continue to misconstrue this further however you like, but burning books is barbaric. We’re past that point as civilized society. But feel free to continue to argue for it behind the veneer of “freedom” or whatever else you can come up with.
Yeah should be punished by stoning or something…
Context and words must be hard for you. Sorry to heat that. Would you like a tissue or a shoulder to cry on?
Burning individual instances of a book for artistic or political purposes, or just because you want to, is not barbaric.
Burning all copies of a book to remove it from circulation and prevent the spread of those ideas is barbaric.
Loud concerts are actual form of artistic expression yet there are laws in some cities that prevent loud music past 9/10pm.
Why? Because it bothers people and interferes with their lives. This is no different.
Also, I find it amusing that you think burning a book is an “artistic expression”. What’s next? Taking a shit is an artistic expression?
People do that too.
Loud concerts are about proximity. I’d definitely say no burning a Bible in front of a church. But if you can be easily ignored by the offended party, then you shouldn’t be stopped.
Some people believe that women should be under the supervision of a man at all times. Not doing so might incite civil unrest. Where do you draw the line? I draw it at no appeasements because unless people have it their they will keep complaining. Teaching them that outrage gets results is a moral hazard.
People can chose to believe whatever they want. It’s the actions and the consequences that matter in a society. If burning a book becomes an act of inciting violence, then it should be reviewed, discussed and a law should come out of it as a consequence which discourages such an act. That’s how civilized societies should work which deem equality as a fundamental right for everyone.
Your hypothetical scenario is just that and we can spend days going back and forth. We are talking about a real problem here.
Ok so in your views the consequences of appeasement are hypothetical. And we should continuously consider what needs to be changed and empower those who commit violence to effect more changes to suit their beliefs.
In reality the consequences can be more severe than whatever you sought to prevent
I said what I said. Nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to pick apart my words in an attempt to forge an argument which has no merit.
I am content with showing to others how well meaning but shortsighted (due to arrogance or incompetence) policies like what you propose are extremely dangerous
Edit : and to be clear I didn’t “pick apart your words” that is a very lazy way to dismiss an argument without confronting it. It’s similar to how you advocate for a policy but dismiss the potential negative effects. it’s delusional.
The violence is already there, this just somehow compels it to show it.