We can not have a modern society where people feel strongly about religion. And there is really no point in appeasement of fundamentalists - they don’t want a compromise they allays want it all.
Again there is no point in appeasing fundamentalist. They don’t want the finger or the hand, they want the whole state to run by their rules - they are not searching for a compromise. Sure, nobody sane is really in favor for burning books - but what is the point, they won’t be any happier with that and will work on the next thing that is offending their archaic views of the world.
Full expression of thought is perfectly possible just by speaking, no book burning required for that.
Where do you draw the line of what is considered acceptable form of expression?
It’s not that I like, I would say - I even despise people burning books. But in my opinion, everyone has the right to do so - since in the end no direct harm is caused to anyone.
Than all believing Muslims are fundamentalists. But we both know that that’s not the case. Moderate Muslims per definition don’t give shit. Like moderate Christians don’t care if you burn a bible. Or I don’t care if you burn a biography of Darwin. Sure I will think you are a dumb person to avoid. But ultimately it’s up to you, not my business.
Also where do you draw the line? Homosexuality and modern view of women rights is offensive to conservative Muslims. Therefore, I prefer to draw a line at actual direkt harm to other people. Burning books, dumb and provocative - but so is a good portion of art.
yeah, clearly the compromise needs to be burning symbols of a group in public to stir hatred and violence against that group. That is totally the reasonable compromise. Clearly the people wanting the right to burn things in public are not fundamentalist, after all basically everyone burns a Quran, or Torah or Bible for breakfast amirite?
The US conservatives and Hillary Clinton were calling for war against Iran because the people there burnt US flags. Trump then bombed a person invited on a diplomatic talk with the US, which is one of the worst crimes against diplomacy imaginable.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Attacking symbols of groups in hate causes escalations all the time.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Indeed, football fans are famously known for their acts of violence, such as flying airliners into skyscrapers, countless suicide bombings, etc. All in the name of football.
I have no interest in Muslims being harmed in any way. They are literally my neighbors. At the same time, one must recognize that among them there are people with a a willingness to support and commit atrocities that is unparalleled today.
People who deny this are blind to reality. All sides are not equal.
and among us civilised western europeans there are many fascists murdering muslims or people assumed to be such or deemed as supporters of them. Anders Breivik murdered over 70 teenagers because of his ideology of fearing a muslim takeover of europe. When you measure muslims by their worst, then you need to measure yourself by people like Breivik too.
I hope you see why that doesnt make sense in either case and is certainly no justification for allowing hate speech in the form of burning symbols of a group subject to discrimination.
When you measure muslims by their worst, then you need to measure yourself by people like Breivik too
I’m a pacifist queer atheist progressive green-party voter Canadian with a POC family. What do I have in common with a Norwegian Christian authoritarian right-wing ethno-fascist murderer? The number of chromosomes? You won’t see me supporting violence against anybody, but you won’t see me supporting a religion that stones people like me either. Do you?
We can not have a modern society where people feel strongly about religion. And there is really no point in appeasement of fundamentalists - they don’t want a compromise they allays want it all.
deleted by creator
Again there is no point in appeasing fundamentalist. They don’t want the finger or the hand, they want the whole state to run by their rules - they are not searching for a compromise. Sure, nobody sane is really in favor for burning books - but what is the point, they won’t be any happier with that and will work on the next thing that is offending their archaic views of the world.
Where do you draw the line of what is considered acceptable form of expression?
It’s not that I like, I would say - I even despise people burning books. But in my opinion, everyone has the right to do so - since in the end no direct harm is caused to anyone.
deleted by creator
Than all believing Muslims are fundamentalists. But we both know that that’s not the case. Moderate Muslims per definition don’t give shit. Like moderate Christians don’t care if you burn a bible. Or I don’t care if you burn a biography of Darwin. Sure I will think you are a dumb person to avoid. But ultimately it’s up to you, not my business.
Also where do you draw the line? Homosexuality and modern view of women rights is offensive to conservative Muslims. Therefore, I prefer to draw a line at actual direkt harm to other people. Burning books, dumb and provocative - but so is a good portion of art.
deleted by creator
All kind of folks is offended by all kind of things. The question is rather simple where do you draw the line.
deleted by creator
Now I’m confused about your opinion - since burning Quran does exactly that, offend feelings - no-one is harmed directly.
yeah, clearly the compromise needs to be burning symbols of a group in public to stir hatred and violence against that group. That is totally the reasonable compromise. Clearly the people wanting the right to burn things in public are not fundamentalist, after all basically everyone burns a Quran, or Torah or Bible for breakfast amirite?
Look at the real-world consequences of mocking Islam, of drawing prophet Muhamed, or burning the Qur’an.
Compare them with the real-world consequences of mocking any other religion (or atheism), or burning their “sacred” books.
Are they comparable? Who is then the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?
The US conservatives and Hillary Clinton were calling for war against Iran because the people there burnt US flags. Trump then bombed a person invited on a diplomatic talk with the US, which is one of the worst crimes against diplomacy imaginable.
Or look at footbal fans hostile to each other, where symbols of the enemy team are burnt vice versa until it escalates to violence.
Attacking symbols of groups in hate causes escalations all the time.
Indeed, football fans are famously known for their acts of violence, such as flying airliners into skyscrapers, countless suicide bombings, etc. All in the name of football.
I have no interest in Muslims being harmed in any way. They are literally my neighbors. At the same time, one must recognize that among them there are people with a a willingness to support and commit atrocities that is unparalleled today.
People who deny this are blind to reality. All sides are not equal.
and among us civilised western europeans there are many fascists murdering muslims or people assumed to be such or deemed as supporters of them. Anders Breivik murdered over 70 teenagers because of his ideology of fearing a muslim takeover of europe. When you measure muslims by their worst, then you need to measure yourself by people like Breivik too.
I hope you see why that doesnt make sense in either case and is certainly no justification for allowing hate speech in the form of burning symbols of a group subject to discrimination.
deleted by creator
I’m a pacifist queer atheist progressive green-party voter Canadian with a POC family. What do I have in common with a Norwegian Christian authoritarian right-wing ethno-fascist murderer? The number of chromosomes? You won’t see me supporting violence against anybody, but you won’t see me supporting a religion that stones people like me either. Do you?