Hundreds of intellectuals and artists are concerned about its implications for freedom of expression, while police, lawyers, and prosecutors consider it too imprecise.
For example, if you look at two people, one that is a Nazi and one that hates Nazis, they are both hating. But it’s quite clearly due to said paradox of tolerance. Only one of them is the asshole.
edit: apperently the analogy wasn’t quite clear.
One is an ideological organisation which is has been causing oppression of minorities for a thousand years up to this day with countless atrocities commited in it’s name, without going into details … the other one is a person with a book, matches and a message.
Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions. Or are you arguing that killing someone for a symbolic insult to your world view is comparable to hating a Nazi?
Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions.
Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions.
I’m still not sure which side you’re talking about.
To be perfectly honest, no, both sides aren’t equally bad, the one that burns the book isn’t as bad as the one who tries to kill the other over it, at least not for the book burning (they might very well be for other actions they take). But both come from a position of intolerance.
That is a nonsense argument. We don’t make every action someone does illegal because we don’t like that kind of person. We make actions illegal because of the kind of action it is.
“inciting” is basically just a fancy euphemism for “those people are violent in a very predictable way” in this case. It is not as if we are talking about someone holding a fiery speech, telling people lies until they are angry enough to become violent. They are violent in the first place. So predictably violent for so long in fact that people apparently make laws forbidding others from triggering the predictably violent people.
And yes, if you make those laws you are absolutely in favour of religious riots because you do what the rioting people demand which has rarely been considered a disincentive for any behaviour.
To me, this falls under the Paradox of Tolerance. Acts of hate should be strongly discouraged.
That doesn’t work in this case since it applies to both sides. The rioting religious people and the Quran burners are both filled with hate.
That doesn’t make them equal.
For example, if you look at two people, one that is a Nazi and one that hates Nazis, they are both hating. But it’s quite clearly due to said paradox of tolerance. Only one of them is the asshole.
edit: apperently the analogy wasn’t quite clear.
One is an ideological organisation which is has been causing oppression of minorities for a thousand years up to this day with countless atrocities commited in it’s name, without going into details … the other one is a person with a book, matches and a message.
Removed by mod
The religious zealot of course. I really didn’t think I had to spell that out…
The latter, since they are extremely often LITERALLY self-proclaimed nazis or at the very least like to hang out with self-proclaimed nazis.
Removed by mod
So the murdering terrorist is the good guy to you?
Well, then in this case I guess the religious person who is willing to riot, injure and kill would be the asshole going purely by their actions and motivations for those actions. Or are you arguing that killing someone for a symbolic insult to your world view is comparable to hating a Nazi?
Obviously, yes.
I’m still not sure which side you’re talking about.
Are you retarded?
deleted by creator
“BoTh SiDeS aRe BaD!”
To be perfectly honest, no, both sides aren’t equally bad, the one that burns the book isn’t as bad as the one who tries to kill the other over it, at least not for the book burning (they might very well be for other actions they take). But both come from a position of intolerance.
The one that burns the book is overwhelmingly nazi, which is quite possibly the worst thing anyone can possibly be.
That is a nonsense argument. We don’t make every action someone does illegal because we don’t like that kind of person. We make actions illegal because of the kind of action it is.
Yes, there are issues where both major sides are bad. You don’t always have to pick a side and 100% adopt their beliefs.
how does it applying to both sides make it not work?
yall act like you can either be fine with religious riots or be fine with inciting religious riots
“inciting” is basically just a fancy euphemism for “those people are violent in a very predictable way” in this case. It is not as if we are talking about someone holding a fiery speech, telling people lies until they are angry enough to become violent. They are violent in the first place. So predictably violent for so long in fact that people apparently make laws forbidding others from triggering the predictably violent people.
And yes, if you make those laws you are absolutely in favour of religious riots because you do what the rioting people demand which has rarely been considered a disincentive for any behaviour.