14 Jul 09
2 edits
It amazes me that so many supposedly astute adult thinkers cannot discern that preservation of civil peace seems to be the goal of the laws.
Sure, if someone gets a bull horn and blasts through the neighberhood that your wife is a whore, it is a victimless crime. You know better.
But if someone doesn't take kindly to it and a rioteous unrest or violent confrontation is instigated, a law may discourage such instigation.
You may say "well these religious people certainly are weak." That may be true. However the government may have concern to keep civil order and peace in society. Should a government not offer some protection to weak people too ?
"Don't go out of your way to aggravate religious people. Or demonstrate that education and not insult is your motive, please."
14 Jul 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillI prefer free speech. No group gets exceptions. There is no 'right not to be offended'.
It amazes me that so many supposedly astute adult thinkers cannot discern that preservation of civil peace seems to be the goal of the laws.
Sure, if someone gets a bull horn and blasts through the neighberhood that your wife is a whore, it is a victimless crime. You know better.
But if someone doesn't take kindly to it and a rioteous unrest or viole igious people. Or demonstrate that education and not insult is your motive, please." [/b]
If we did it your way, religious groups could spout whatever BS they wished without being challenged.
Government should step in once a violent act is committed. It is a waste of time and resources trying to step in every time someone gets offended in some silly argument.
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by SwissGambit1. So someone should always get offended?
I prefer free speech. No group gets exceptions. There is no 'right not to be offended'.
If we did it your way, religious groups could spout whatever BS they wished without being challenged.
Government should step in once a violent act is committed. It is a waste of time and resources trying to step in every time someone gets offended in some silly argument.
2. Sounds like you, you just said you believe in free speech.
3. Then why are you arguing?
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel581. Non-sequitur.
1. So someone should always get offended?
2. Sounds like you, you just said you believe in free speech.
3. Then why are you arguing?
2. Go ahead, challenge me. Obviously, since I'm an atheist and you're a theist, we both believe the other's position is BS. This is to be expected.
3. You missed the point. Try reading more carefully next time.
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy point is, why are you posting?
1. Non-sequitur.
2. Go ahead, challenge me. Obviously, since I'm an atheist and you're a theist, we both believe the other's position is BS. This is to be expected.
3. You missed the point. Try reading more carefully next time.
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by jaywillI agree with what SwissGambit said.
It amazes me that so many supposedly astute adult thinkers cannot discern that preservation of civil peace seems to be the goal of the laws.
Sure, if someone gets a bull horn and blasts through the neighberhood that your wife is a whore, it is a victimless crime. You know better.
But if someone doesn't take kindly to it and a rioteous unrest or viole ...[text shortened]... igious people. Or demonstrate that education and not insult is your motive, please." [/b]
Do you think an anti-blasphemy law preserves "civil peace"? What is "Civil Peace"?
If someone doesn't take kindly to the speech and instigates a violent confrontation then it's the one who is violent who is fault, not the one making the speech.
If you are so weak that you get so offended at free speech that you are prone to be violent then you don't deserve the protection of violating someone else's right of free speech.
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWhat is free speech? Does threats count as free speech?
I agree with what SwissGambit said.
Do you think an anti-blasphemy law preserves "civil peace"? What is "Civil Peace"?
If someone doesn't take kindly to the speech and instigates a violent confrontation then it's the one who is violent who is fault, not the one making the speech.
If you are so weak that you get so offended at free speech that y ...[text shortened]... then you don't deserve the protection of violating someone else's right of free speech.
14 Jul 09
Originally posted by daniel58What kind of threats? Blasphemy isn't a threat.
What is free speech? Does threats count as free speech?
It is true that death threats - if a reasonable person would consider them to be serious is illegal in many places.
Blasphemy, however, is not a threat.