You’re not allowed to be naked in public. Doesn’t matter if you want to protest jeans. You can’t be naked.
You’re not allowed to take a shit on the curb outside of whatever you want to protest either.
You’re not allowed to burn flags of forgein nations.
plenty of expressions that can be used to protest are banned. What’s so different here? You can still burn as many books as you want in your own backyard. You just can’t do it at the town square.
And as a final note. It’s a proposition. It hasn’t been voted on. How about you save your outrage until they’ve actually decided on what to do?
What purpose does a public book burning serve beyond provoking and insulting?
That’s why it’s not allowed to burn forgein flags. It’s just a means to insult a group of people in public.
Now, I’m not for a ban on book burning, religious or otherwise. If you have the permit go nuts. But the arguments people present are just really really bad.
The point is, you brining up things we can’t do outside of the burning symbols discussion is irrelevant. We’re not allowed to slap people, therefore we should not be allowed to criticize the government simply does not follow.
We’re talking about having the right to burn your OWN possessions. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is offensive or isn’t. It’s a slippery slope that can’t end well.
You can burn your own things in private, just as much as you can be naked in private, jack off to furry porn, do drugs or worship a Hitler statue in private. But you cannot and shouldn’t do so in public.
They are not taking away your right to burn your own possession.
They’re just telling you, you can’t do it in public. You’re free to burn whatever book you want in your own backyard. What’s so difficult to understand?
And when the religious extremists next come for queer public displays of affection? Are people supposed to only do that in private, too?
It’s a book. They can get over it. I won’t hurt them if they want to burn LoTR, The Selfish Gene or any other book (or flag) privately or publicly.
Ultimately this is capitulation to threats of violence. It’s a rather slippery slope.
If this kind of thing becomes the trend, it will only beget more violence not less. And climate activists using this strategy will be the least of our worries.
I think we’re done here. You have nothing but strawman arguments and “it’s bad cause I say so”.
You choose to look past that it’s done with permits from the government. With the sole intention of provoking and inciting. And they have to give those permits due to how the law currently is written. It becomes state sponsored incitement and that’s what people get upset about. And that’s what they want to avoid.
And when the religious extremists next come for queer public displays of affection?
That is 100% unrelated to them. It has nothing to do with religious people. Unless they make it about them. Same thing can not be said for religious scripture.
Like I said you have nothing but strawman and bad faith arguments.
I mean, you need permits for large protests/assemblies right? What’s the intention there? Expression, incitement, a hope that change can be provoked?
Shouldn’t the state sponsor protection of expression, within reason?
As long as they aren’t starting other fires when burning, I really don’t care. I’d rather they use a method that results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions (perhaps an ax and a block of wood?), but it’s ultimately a small amount in that regard.
I genuinely wasn’t trying to strawman or bad faith anything. I understand why some people really don’t like religion. What I do not understand is why people lose their heads over the condition of someone else’s copy of a book that believers didn’t even author.
It’s silly. Those who are offended by this behavior are making it about themselves. They aren’t hearing the burners’ side. It’s the believer’s way or the highway, and their way is unreasonable.
Threatening violence over this nonsense is absurd. Now people are gonna burn out of spite. This is going to have the opposite of the intended effect.
It’s just a book. And a flag is just cloth. How is this the hot topic when the atmospheric [CO2] is over 420ppm?
They can get over people burning copies of their own books. No one is coming for temples or holy sites or libraries here. No one is talking conversion.
Some people think that book is holy, some think it’s trash. I think both groups should be able to express their opinion however they like, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. And if they want to live in a world where people don’t want to burn their book, perhaps they should write a better one. Or just get over it. It is just a book after all. It’s not like crops burned.
No, I suspect this is really about power. It’s a powerful statement, the act of burning something in public. If it weren’t powerful, it wouldn’t be so…inflammatory. And a certain amount of any structure’s power comes from the perception of that power. Allowing this to occur anywhere in the world is an erosion of that power. It says there are those who resist, there are those whose priorities are otherwise, and they have the strength to publicly display their opinions. And they do so without setting fire to a bunch of other stuff. It’s a very controlled and specific criticism. I want people to have this power. Doing it privately is meaningless, it may as well have not occurred.
Anyway…do what you will. I think it’s fine. You want to restrict it. We’re neither of us budging, I agree.
it’s silly. Those who are offended by this behavior are making it about themselves. They aren’t hearing the burners’ side. It’s the believer’s way or the highway, and their way is unreasonable.
Your lack of understanding is not an argument for or against anything.
They’re taking a symbol that is deemed holy and sacred to people. And you claim they’re making it about themselves?
You can’t call someone ugly and then follow it up with, “it’s nothing personal”
You say you’re not trying to strawman but continue to do it with every other argument you put forth.
They can get over people burning copies of their own books. No one is coming for temples or holy sites or libraries here. No one is talking conversion.
It’s silly that I have to say it again. But… Your lack of understanding is not an argument for or against.
You’ve stated many times that you cannot understand how someone can get upset, or feel frightened over others publicaly burning their symbols.
So how do you expect to argue or debate anything if you can’t even comprehend the issue?
You don’t seem to care at all that you’re not allowed to burn flags. But this is for some reason the hill you’re ready to die on. Totally ignoring all the hills behind you where the same reasoning have been applied to prevent inflammatory forms of expression.
you know in most places it is illegal to start any fire in public? You are not allowed to start a campfire on a public plaza or barbeque in most parks already. Why should there be a specific exception for burning things to incite hatred and violence against people?
All of that is fine. Limit where you can burn something, limit the toxicity of the item burned, but do not limit burning things based on “offense”.
You need to see the difference between limiting something because it’s dangerous vs causing offense. That is a dangerous road no democratic government should go down.
Inciting violence in public by burning symbols of a minority group is a threat to democracy and should be prohibited. Take it from a German, we have experience with escalating hatred and because of that we also have proper laws against hate speech now.
Burning a religious book is a form of hate speech and serves only to incite hate.
I for one refuse to cower to those threatening violence in return for burning a piece of paper. Any person that threatens violence in retaliation to a symbolic action is not to be treated with tolerance or respect, because they themselves are not giving any.
How tolerant are those same people towards atheists or other religions?
The core of all of this is simply that, you taking offense, whatever that means, should not be enforced by the state in the form of punishing me. It is a slippery slope that can’t end well.
Take whatever offense you want, ban it in your private house or business, just keep the government out of deciding what is “offensive” and what is a matter of protest.
I for one find a lot of the text inside the Bible / Qur’an idiotic / offensive, but I’d never advocate for the government to step in and ban the books.
The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn’t specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).
The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other’s safety or freedom.
Finally: it’s stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you’re just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.
There is a thing called “incitement against ethic group”
Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It’s incitement against ethnic groups.
As opposed to preaching that “Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality”, which is fair criticism.
One is incitement, the other criticism.
The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don’t actually know if that is the case, but it’s a fair assumption)
Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I’m sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it’s incitement against ethnic groups or not.
I’m personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don’t burn flags outside of embassies.
Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.
Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A “thinly veiled threat” or implications can be enough.
My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.
You’re not allowed to be naked in public. Doesn’t matter if you want to protest jeans. You can’t be naked.
You’re not allowed to take a shit on the curb outside of whatever you want to protest either.
You’re not allowed to burn flags of forgein nations.
plenty of expressions that can be used to protest are banned. What’s so different here? You can still burn as many books as you want in your own backyard. You just can’t do it at the town square.
And as a final note. It’s a proposition. It hasn’t been voted on. How about you save your outrage until they’ve actually decided on what to do?
Noone is talking about indecent exposure or defecating in public, we’re taking about burning your own possession.
I’d also argue a private citizen should be allowed to burn any flag they want. It’s the same thing as with books.
Point is. There are plenty of things we can’t do.
What purpose does a public book burning serve beyond provoking and insulting?
That’s why it’s not allowed to burn forgein flags. It’s just a means to insult a group of people in public.
Now, I’m not for a ban on book burning, religious or otherwise. If you have the permit go nuts. But the arguments people present are just really really bad.
The point is, you brining up things we can’t do outside of the burning symbols discussion is irrelevant. We’re not allowed to slap people, therefore we should not be allowed to criticize the government simply does not follow.
We’re talking about having the right to burn your OWN possessions. The government should not be in the business of deciding what is offensive or isn’t. It’s a slippery slope that can’t end well.
You can burn your own things in private, just as much as you can be naked in private, jack off to furry porn, do drugs or worship a Hitler statue in private. But you cannot and shouldn’t do so in public.
They are not taking away your right to burn your own possession.
They’re just telling you, you can’t do it in public. You’re free to burn whatever book you want in your own backyard. What’s so difficult to understand?
And when the religious extremists next come for queer public displays of affection? Are people supposed to only do that in private, too?
It’s a book. They can get over it. I won’t hurt them if they want to burn LoTR, The Selfish Gene or any other book (or flag) privately or publicly.
Ultimately this is capitulation to threats of violence. It’s a rather slippery slope.
If this kind of thing becomes the trend, it will only beget more violence not less. And climate activists using this strategy will be the least of our worries.
I think we’re done here. You have nothing but strawman arguments and “it’s bad cause I say so”.
You choose to look past that it’s done with permits from the government. With the sole intention of provoking and inciting. And they have to give those permits due to how the law currently is written. It becomes state sponsored incitement and that’s what people get upset about. And that’s what they want to avoid.
That is 100% unrelated to them. It has nothing to do with religious people. Unless they make it about them. Same thing can not be said for religious scripture.
Like I said you have nothing but strawman and bad faith arguments.
I mean, you need permits for large protests/assemblies right? What’s the intention there? Expression, incitement, a hope that change can be provoked?
Shouldn’t the state sponsor protection of expression, within reason?
As long as they aren’t starting other fires when burning, I really don’t care. I’d rather they use a method that results in fewer greenhouse gas emissions (perhaps an ax and a block of wood?), but it’s ultimately a small amount in that regard.
I genuinely wasn’t trying to strawman or bad faith anything. I understand why some people really don’t like religion. What I do not understand is why people lose their heads over the condition of someone else’s copy of a book that believers didn’t even author.
It’s silly. Those who are offended by this behavior are making it about themselves. They aren’t hearing the burners’ side. It’s the believer’s way or the highway, and their way is unreasonable.
Threatening violence over this nonsense is absurd. Now people are gonna burn out of spite. This is going to have the opposite of the intended effect.
It’s just a book. And a flag is just cloth. How is this the hot topic when the atmospheric [CO2] is over 420ppm?
They can get over people burning copies of their own books. No one is coming for temples or holy sites or libraries here. No one is talking conversion.
Some people think that book is holy, some think it’s trash. I think both groups should be able to express their opinion however they like, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. And if they want to live in a world where people don’t want to burn their book, perhaps they should write a better one. Or just get over it. It is just a book after all. It’s not like crops burned.
No, I suspect this is really about power. It’s a powerful statement, the act of burning something in public. If it weren’t powerful, it wouldn’t be so…inflammatory. And a certain amount of any structure’s power comes from the perception of that power. Allowing this to occur anywhere in the world is an erosion of that power. It says there are those who resist, there are those whose priorities are otherwise, and they have the strength to publicly display their opinions. And they do so without setting fire to a bunch of other stuff. It’s a very controlled and specific criticism. I want people to have this power. Doing it privately is meaningless, it may as well have not occurred.
Anyway…do what you will. I think it’s fine. You want to restrict it. We’re neither of us budging, I agree.
Your lack of understanding is not an argument for or against anything.
They’re taking a symbol that is deemed holy and sacred to people. And you claim they’re making it about themselves?
You can’t call someone ugly and then follow it up with, “it’s nothing personal”
You say you’re not trying to strawman but continue to do it with every other argument you put forth.
It’s silly that I have to say it again. But… Your lack of understanding is not an argument for or against.
You’ve stated many times that you cannot understand how someone can get upset, or feel frightened over others publicaly burning their symbols.
So how do you expect to argue or debate anything if you can’t even comprehend the issue?
You don’t seem to care at all that you’re not allowed to burn flags. But this is for some reason the hill you’re ready to die on. Totally ignoring all the hills behind you where the same reasoning have been applied to prevent inflammatory forms of expression.
you know in most places it is illegal to start any fire in public? You are not allowed to start a campfire on a public plaza or barbeque in most parks already. Why should there be a specific exception for burning things to incite hatred and violence against people?
All of that is fine. Limit where you can burn something, limit the toxicity of the item burned, but do not limit burning things based on “offense”.
You need to see the difference between limiting something because it’s dangerous vs causing offense. That is a dangerous road no democratic government should go down.
Inciting violence in public by burning symbols of a minority group is a threat to democracy and should be prohibited. Take it from a German, we have experience with escalating hatred and because of that we also have proper laws against hate speech now.
Burning a religious book is a form of hate speech and serves only to incite hate.
Listen to what you are saying.
I for one refuse to cower to those threatening violence in return for burning a piece of paper. Any person that threatens violence in retaliation to a symbolic action is not to be treated with tolerance or respect, because they themselves are not giving any.
How tolerant are those same people towards atheists or other religions?
The core of all of this is simply that, you taking offense, whatever that means, should not be enforced by the state in the form of punishing me. It is a slippery slope that can’t end well.
Take whatever offense you want, ban it in your private house or business, just keep the government out of deciding what is “offensive” and what is a matter of protest.
I for one find a lot of the text inside the Bible / Qur’an idiotic / offensive, but I’d never advocate for the government to step in and ban the books.
The significant difference is that public nakedness (which isn’t specifically illegal in most European countries) and shitting on the curb have concrete consequences for others. The laws are there to protect others from unwanted sexual attention (exhibitionism) and literal disease (shit on the street).
The limit for the freedoms of one person should be the safety and freedom of others. Burning books does not infringe on other’s safety or freedom.
Finally: it’s stupidly easy to circumvent this. The same provocative assholes that are burning Qurans now, will just shift to other forms of desecration or other ways of offending Muslims. If the goal is to prevent protests that provoke authoritarian or extremistic regimes, you’re just going to have to make that the law, because laws like this will just make people protest in another, equally provoking way.
There is a thing called “incitement against ethic group”
Grabing a microphone and preaching in public that Muslims are subhuman camel-piss drinkers. Would not be legal, despite it not infringing on someones immediate safety or freedom. It’s incitement against ethnic groups.
As opposed to preaching that “Islam is a bad religion that promotes gender inequality”, which is fair criticism.
One is incitement, the other criticism.
The framework is already there. The proposition would probably put that the burning of religious scripture in public falls under that category. (I don’t actually know if that is the case, but it’s a fair assumption)
Obviously you can desecrate and provoke in other ways. And I’m sure people will find other ways. And there will be new debates and court cases to decide if it’s incitement against ethnic groups or not.
I’m personally not 100% sure where I stand if it should be legally OK to burn books in public or not. There are many things we are allowed to do in private, that we are not allowed to do in public. Maybe book burnings outside of embassies is one of those things. Just like we don’t burn flags outside of embassies.
Incitement is illegal, yes, because it indirectly infringes on others safety and freedom. By encouraging violence against a group of people, that group is put in danger.
Luckily, there is a justice system that can apply nuance to each case, so that people can be convicted of inciting violence even though the do not explicitly threaten anyone. A “thinly veiled threat” or implications can be enough.
My opinion is that we have robust laws in place to prevent threats, incitement of violence, etc. adding blasphemy laws restricts freedom of expression without adding any protection of value.
They’re not adding blasphemy laws. How are you not keeping up?