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.
I believe they are buying a copy of a symbol, then burning it. If they’re genuinely stealing Qurans and burning them, I don’t condone that.
Even if there were a factory where religious texts were systematically copied and then immediately burned onsite, the total number of religious texts in the world would remain the same. The number of adherents would remain the same. Nothing would change but CO2 levels.
You can’t call someone ugly and then follow it up with, “It’s nothing personal.”
Is a book burning really a personal attack? Did they write it? Did they personally know the author? Was an original burned or was it property that was purchased?
I think people should be able to express their opinion that an ideology is ugly. Without fear of repercussions, especially from those who can’t control their emotions.
How is the burning of a book a personal attack? It’s criticism of an ideology. If someone wants to take it personally, that’s their problem. Saying a book is garbage is not the same as saying a person is.
Does burning a book delete its fans? Couldn’t they just, I don’t know, print more? Why wouldn’t they just laugh while printing more?! And hell, sell it to the burners. Turn a profit off their opinions. Why would you threaten violence and prove their point?
you cannot understand how someone can get upset, or feel frightened over others publically burning their symbols.
I do not understand why someone would be moved to violence by the destruction of a copy of a symbol that wasn’t theirs. I absolutely understand anger and fear in reaction to libraries, museums, or historical sites’ destruction. I absolutely understand being upset and frightened by organisms burning. But not symbols, no. That seems a breath away from insanity to me.
That isn’t what this is though. The symbol endures, that’s kind of the point of symbols. It’s destruction of a book, yes, but it’s the burner’s copy. They’re not marching through the city, taking Qurans from people’s homes, and burning them. That fool paid for the thing he burned. And the shopkeeper already ordered another one. Again, they could profit from this, and all the while seeming cooler and funnier. That would be the real power move. Not threats of violence.
So how do you expect to argue or debate anything if you don’t even comprehend the issue?
We are still talking about Quran burnings right? Copies of paper and the imaginary friends of adults? Free speech v religious protection? Walking the secular line without leaving room for racist skinheads who abuse liberties like these for their own agenda?
I think if people want to hold on so tightly to and refuse to update an old inflammatory book, they should get used to a certain number being destroyed each year by readers who thought it was as good as ash.
This goes for all ideologies. They are not immune to criticism, however inflammatory it may be. I don’t think public spaces should be policed to restrict expression of criticism of ideologies, so long as there aren’t threats of violence toward people. There can be strong criticism of an ideology without hate, threats, and violence. I think book desecration qualifies as acceptable criticism. I wouldn’t do it, but I wouldn’t jail someone for it either (provided it’s their copy).
Now if someone starts waving a flag of hate, then we have a problem. That is promotion of an ideology of hate not criticism of one. Ideologies that call for violence, deserve criticism and resistance. The criticism and resistance deserve protection, not medieval ideologies.
…you’re not allowed to burn flags.
It may be illegal for some but not for all. I believe people should be allowed to do this (provided they do it safely). Because it isn’t a big deal. It’s not an expression calling for violence. I interpet it as, “I think this flag (or book) is dangerous trash.” I may or may not agree with their opinion, but that doesn’t matter. I believe they have a right to express it, as I have a right to express mine.
Damn dude. You write a whole essay without actually answering or responding to anything.
Debating with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. It’s just gonna shit on the board and say it won.
Your final response to the flag burning is so telling you don’t have a clue what you’re on about. We’re talking Specifically about Denmark. That’s what the article was about. You start talking about what is and isn’t allowed elsewhere is irrelevant.
If you truly don’t see how any of those things are related, you’re the pigeon. How did you put it, I think we’re done here? Have fun losing more freedoms to other violent extremists in the future.
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.
I believe they are buying a copy of a symbol, then burning it. If they’re genuinely stealing Qurans and burning them, I don’t condone that.
Even if there were a factory where religious texts were systematically copied and then immediately burned onsite, the total number of religious texts in the world would remain the same. The number of adherents would remain the same. Nothing would change but CO2 levels.
Is a book burning really a personal attack? Did they write it? Did they personally know the author? Was an original burned or was it property that was purchased?
I think people should be able to express their opinion that an ideology is ugly. Without fear of repercussions, especially from those who can’t control their emotions.
How is the burning of a book a personal attack? It’s criticism of an ideology. If someone wants to take it personally, that’s their problem. Saying a book is garbage is not the same as saying a person is.
Does burning a book delete its fans? Couldn’t they just, I don’t know, print more? Why wouldn’t they just laugh while printing more?! And hell, sell it to the burners. Turn a profit off their opinions. Why would you threaten violence and prove their point?
I do not understand why someone would be moved to violence by the destruction of a copy of a symbol that wasn’t theirs. I absolutely understand anger and fear in reaction to libraries, museums, or historical sites’ destruction. I absolutely understand being upset and frightened by organisms burning. But not symbols, no. That seems a breath away from insanity to me.
That isn’t what this is though. The symbol endures, that’s kind of the point of symbols. It’s destruction of a book, yes, but it’s the burner’s copy. They’re not marching through the city, taking Qurans from people’s homes, and burning them. That fool paid for the thing he burned. And the shopkeeper already ordered another one. Again, they could profit from this, and all the while seeming cooler and funnier. That would be the real power move. Not threats of violence.
We are still talking about Quran burnings right? Copies of paper and the imaginary friends of adults? Free speech v religious protection? Walking the secular line without leaving room for racist skinheads who abuse liberties like these for their own agenda?
I think if people want to hold on so tightly to and refuse to update an old inflammatory book, they should get used to a certain number being destroyed each year by readers who thought it was as good as ash.
This goes for all ideologies. They are not immune to criticism, however inflammatory it may be. I don’t think public spaces should be policed to restrict expression of criticism of ideologies, so long as there aren’t threats of violence toward people. There can be strong criticism of an ideology without hate, threats, and violence. I think book desecration qualifies as acceptable criticism. I wouldn’t do it, but I wouldn’t jail someone for it either (provided it’s their copy).
Now if someone starts waving a flag of hate, then we have a problem. That is promotion of an ideology of hate not criticism of one. Ideologies that call for violence, deserve criticism and resistance. The criticism and resistance deserve protection, not medieval ideologies.
It may be illegal for some but not for all. I believe people should be allowed to do this (provided they do it safely). Because it isn’t a big deal. It’s not an expression calling for violence. I interpet it as, “I think this flag (or book) is dangerous trash.” I may or may not agree with their opinion, but that doesn’t matter. I believe they have a right to express it, as I have a right to express mine.
Damn dude. You write a whole essay without actually answering or responding to anything.
Debating with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. It’s just gonna shit on the board and say it won.
Your final response to the flag burning is so telling you don’t have a clue what you’re on about. We’re talking Specifically about Denmark. That’s what the article was about. You start talking about what is and isn’t allowed elsewhere is irrelevant.
If you truly don’t see how any of those things are related, you’re the pigeon. How did you put it, I think we’re done here? Have fun losing more freedoms to other violent extremists in the future.