Danish man who burned Quran charged with blasphemy

[Deleted]

The state refused to print it after seizing the rights you mean?

No, the bavarian state had the rights from 1945.

And yes, they refused to print it, but the book was still printed for libraries and schools. When i went to school, we even discussed a copy of mein kampf. And that is 40 years ago.

[Deleted]

I dont see the pople wearing high heels as insult. Its a parody, actually. While some christ fanatic could see it as insult. While "asshole" is a real hard insult here in germany, and punished. But probably i find better words. As like "idiot".. or "dumbfuck" or "asshats"?

Why is "asshole" punishable and not "idiot", "dumbfuck", or "asshat"?

Also, to Catholics, the Pope is a figure of extreme import and reverance. Why would saying he crossdresses not offend them? How is that somehow better than calling someone an asshole online? There's no consistency to your worldview whatsoever.

[Deleted]

Your laws say it can give up tp a 6 month prison sentance

Not at all. If i ever get my mobile working again, i will do that just for you. Running around in my village, lifting my right arm, shouting "Heil Bratwurst!".

The only thing that could happen is that worried citizen would catch me and bring me to the closest asylum. But thats all.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is "asshole" punishable and not "idiot", "dumbfuck", or "asshat"?

I meant those as example as punishable insults.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, to Catholics, the Pope is a figure of extreme import and reverance. Why would saying he crossdresses not offend them?

It would offend fanatic catholics. But thats not the question. Again. It is no insult by law but a parody and even satire, as the vatican is against crossdressing and LGBT in general.

[Deleted]

It would offend fanatic catholics. But thats not the question. Again. It is no insult by law but a parody and even satire, as the vatican is against crossdressing and LGBT in general.

Are you saying the feelings of "fanatic catholics" is not important? You're special pleading again.

[Deleted]

All I know is you;re in favor of heavy censorship, and taking away liberty.

Unfortunately it is not much that you know. And the things you pretend to know even are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying the feelings of "fanatic catholics" is not important? You're special pleading again.

I say that Parody and Satire are part of the free speech, and weight more than an upset fanatic. While it factually did not include a insult as like modern western laws define it.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Unfortunately it is not much that you know. And the things you pretend to know even are wrong.

Nope, you consistently show that you're in favor of those things. Here, in this thread, you are trying to take the liberty from a man burning his own property, on his own land. You have argued in favor of that.

[cubby]

Why is "asshole" punishable and not "idiot", "dumbfuck", or "asshat"?

Also, to Catholics, the Pope is a figure of extreme import and reverance. Why would saying he crossdresses not offend them? How is that somehow better than calling someone an asshole online? There's no consistency to your worldview whatsoever.

You're arguing semantics with someone for whom English is either a second or third language. And @rym is very good with it. But the subtleties of a language with more than 2 million words can be, shall we say, difficult.

I'm guessing that the insults (like asshole, idiot, etc) are based on a libel/slander or "assault" law similar to the United States ("assault and battery" - verbal and physical). So diving down into the minutiae of his country's laws is going to get you no where, because neither of you have the shared vocabulary to make yourselves fully understood.

Plus, you're both being hostile - so there's no where to go but down at this point.

[Deleted]

I say that Parody and Satire are part of the free speech, and weight more than an upset fanatic. While it factually did not include a insult as like modern western laws define it.

And I say that human interaction without state intrusion weighs more than someone upsetting you by insulting you.

I refer you to this post of mine.

- - - Updated - - -

You're arguing semantics with someone for whom English is either a second or third language. And @rym is very good with it. But the subtleties of a language with more than 2 million words can be, shall we say, difficult.

I'm guessing that the insults (like asshole, idiot, etc) are based on a libel/slander or "assault" law similar to the United States ("assault and battery" - verbal and physical). So diving down into the minutiae of his country's laws is going to get you no where, because neither of you have the shared vocabulary to make yourselves fully understood.

Plus, you're both being hostile - so there's no where to go but down at this point.

I'm not being hostile.

[Deleted]

Nope, you consistently show that you're in favor of those things. Here, in this thread, you are trying to take the liberty from a man burning his own property, on his own land. You have argued in favor of that.

Yes, i did. I dared to argue against burning a book while it does only show the disgust of the person for a book he did not even read or understand.

I dared to argue about burning books as the method of fascists and tyrants to get rid of controversive ideas about philosophy, art and science.

I am sorry if you cant stand that. But i can assure you that i dont give a fuck if you feel offended by me trying to argument against the brainless destruction of wisdom.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not being hostile.

You are. As you just want to show what an evil tyrant i am.

And i am, as i am just at a point where i laugh about you. And even make jokes about you, while you obviously dont seem to detect that.

[Deleted]

You are. As you just want to show what an evil tyrant i am.

Specifically getting to grips with how you view the world and expressing your inconsistencies, blind spots and tendency towards authoritarianism is not being hostile.

It is exactly the kind of behaviour this thread should cause, for both sides.

And i am, as i am just at a point where i laugh about you. And even make jokes about you, while you obviously dont seem to detect that.

So you're telling me you're behaving like a child?

[cubby]

I'm not being hostile.

Of course you are. You're also selectively ignoring key parts while hammering misunderstood pieces of responses.

Do you understand that @rym's "insult" law could be very similar to the United States' "assault" law? Or libel/slander law? Or were you just going to ignore that entirely?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Yes, i did. I dared to argue against burning a book while it does only show the disgust of the person for a book he did not even read or understand.

I dared to argue about burning books as the method of fascists and tyrants to get rid of controversive ideas about philosophy, art and science.

I am sorry if you cant stand that. But i can assure you that i dont give a fuck if you feel offended by me trying to argument against the brainless destruction of wisdom.

How do you know he's not read it? Not that it even matters.

"Burning books" is not the same as "burned A BOOK." The guy didn't round up all the Qurans in his town and burn them in a massive fire in public square.

You are forgetting the part where a single man, alone, on his own land, burned his own property, Those are the key factors. He didn;t call up a riot. He didn't steal someones property from their homes. He didn't do this on public land.

Your links to Nazis/fascism is an utterly ridiculous straw man. Its a weasels argument to get out of actually using logic.

[Deleted]

Of course you are. You're also selectively ignoring key parts while hammering misunderstood pieces of responses.

Can you tell me what parts I've ignored please?

Do you understand that @rym's "insult" law could be very similar to the United States' "assault" law? Or libel/slander law? Or were you just going to ignore that entirely?

If it is, which it doesn't seem that it is based on my reading of the article (I'm unaware that you can actually be arrested for insulting someone in the US), it isn't at all how he views it. He very much perceives it as a ban against insulting people, and he's defending that, and he's calling it liberal.

[cubby]

So you're telling me you're behaving like a child?

No, he's just not being hostile.

[Deleted]

Specifically getting to grips with how you view the world and expressing your inconsistencies, blind spots and tendency towards authoritarianism is not being hostile.

The thing is: I never had a tendency towards authoritarianism. I am a conservative democrat. You just fight against an enemy that is no enemy.

Well. While i dont know where you come from. You seem like one of those islam-bashers for political reasons.

So you're telling me you're behaving like a child?

No, as i do no childish jokes.

[Deleted]

So, he's just not being hostile.

I didn't accuse him of being hostile. He told me how he was trying to behave, and it sounded like he was telling me he was behaving like a child.

[Deleted]

Your links to Nazis/fascism is an utterly ridiculous straw man. Its a weasels argument to get out of actually using logic.

No it is actually exactly that. A right wing muslim hater burning a book he doesnt understand just to upset people and not to have to understand what he is burning.

[Deleted]

The thing is: I never had a tendency towards authoritarianism. I am a conservative democrat. You just fight against an enemy that is no enemy.

You do have a tendency towards authoritarianism: you think that insults should be criminalised. That's certainly not liberal or libertarian.

Well. While i dont know where you come from. You seem like one of those islam-bashers for political reasons.

How do you define an "islam-basher"? I haven't even mentioned Islam, or my opinion on it.

No, as i do no childish jokes.

What's the difference, objectively, from your perspective between making fun of someone and insulting them?

[cubby]

Can you tell me what parts I've ignored please?


If it is, which it doesn't seem that it is based on my reading of the article (I'm unaware that you can actually be arrested for insulting someone in the US), it isn't at all how he views it. He very much perceives it as a ban against insulting people, and he's defending that, and he's calling it liberal.

You answered your own question - good job!

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

No it is actually exactly that. A right wing muslim hater burning a book he doesnt understand just to upset people and not to have to understand what he is burning.

I need proof that he's never read the book?

Again, this was his own book that he paid for, on land that he paid for.