• curiousaur@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The book burning was not malicious. It was a test to see if the other party is malicious.

    • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What a feeble and easy to see through excuse. When did aggressive provocation by public desecration of holy symbols of a world religion stop being malicious?

      • curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Easy to see through? What are you talking about?

        It’s not aggressive.

        It’s only desecration if you believe Islamic law.

        • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Dude … here is this book … we know that millions of people consider the most holy thing in the world. What do we do with it? Obviously coming up with the idea to publicly burn such book is as malicious as it gets.

          • curiousaur@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not even close to malicious as it gets. That brain dead take is the point of burning it.

            If you think burning paper is as malicious as it gets, where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?

            • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              So publicly burning a certain paper that is the most holy item to millions of people in the world with the sole intent of provoking them by desecration is not malicious? ROFL you can´t be serious, you must be a shill for sure.

              where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?

              Cheap attempt to derail from the actual topic of malicious public Quran burning. Those things are on a whole different level and not part of the discussion here.

                • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You mean that hypocritical question?

                  where do you place mass killings and terrorism on your maliciousness scale?

                  Obviously calling mass killings malicious is a diminution and I would strongly refuse doing so because of that. Mass killings are obviously far beyond malicious, more like really fucking evil. Terrorism is another topic because it depends very much on perspective since one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. However the actual question here seems to be why it is so important to you to derail from the actual topic of the discussion, which is the malicious public burning of holy symbols of a world religion to intentionally create more hate and violence in a world that already has way too much of it.

                  • curiousaur@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You keep using the word malicious, so in order to move forward, I feel we need to get a sense of your maliciousness scale.

                    So, punching someone in the face, more or less malicious then burning some paper?