Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"FFS - it depends on the context in which the collection of paper was burned. Was it in private, or was it in public, with a dramatic show of how much they hate the ideology, this ideology is the downfall of our society? That's what makes the difference. Feel free to buy as many Qurans as you like, buy an incinerator for your yard/back garden/within your perimeter and burn away! Nothing will happen to you. Enjoy! Hmmmm. Please read up on inciting violence. Christianity and homophobia.......sweeping generalisation. Many denominations accept. Others do not, so pick your church carefully. Oh dear. I don't condone mockery of any religion. Any race. Any sexual orientation. Any gender. Any disability. Political affiliation is not a protected characteristic. Religion is protected. And that's why I find your comments so....so....erm......oh dear. Can't say anything nice...... I've said plenty. " You have said plenty without answering any of my questions clearly 
The same "context" you are talking about never applied when people were doing the same thing about Christianity. No one invited violence. Someone expressed their contempt towards a religion in public, something which many have done towards Christianity. Violence was committed by some far right extremists on the guy who expressed his contempt.
And I am not arguing whether Christianity is fully homophobic or not. But by your argument, a homosexual who has suffered due to Christianity's views against homosexuality cannot protest in public to express his contempt for the religion by burning the Bible.
A person is protected by protected characteristic. The ideology itself is not. If you can say something about Communism, you should be able to say the same about Islam too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam?" Oh dear. Miq | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam?" If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff "Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff
Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them "How is it a cop out to say that all incitement should be dealt with the same? Seriously, explain your logic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff
Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them
How is it a cop out to say that all incitement should be dealt with the same?
Seriously, explain your logic."You said I have to take it up to the police. When the Church of Scientology tried to stop the protest, they weren't given heed. The police are very much aware of what happened. As I said the police didn't arrest bible burners too. This means that two-tier policing exists right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff
Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them
How is it a cop out to say that all incitement should be dealt with the same?
Seriously, explain your logic.
You said I have to take it up to the police. When the Church of Scientology tried to stop the protest, they weren't given heed. The police are very much aware of what happened. As I said the police didn't arrest bible burners too.
This means that two-tier policing exists right?"Didn’t I say it was a failure of policing? Oh that’s right, I did.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff
Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them
How is it a cop out to say that all incitement should be dealt with the same?
Seriously, explain your logic.
You said I have to take it up to the police. When the Church of Scientology tried to stop the protest, they weren't given heed. The police are very much aware of what happened. As I said the police didn't arrest bible burners too.
This means that two-tier policing exists right?
Didn’t I say it was a failure of policing? Oh that’s right, I did.
"That's cool. So according to you, saying X religion is evil in public should be a punishable offence. Does that apply to public social media posts too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff
Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them
How is it a cop out to say that all incitement should be dealt with the same?
Seriously, explain your logic.
You said I have to take it up to the police. When the Church of Scientology tried to stop the protest, they weren't given heed. The police are very much aware of what happened. As I said the police didn't arrest bible burners too.
This means that two-tier policing exists right?
Didn’t I say it was a failure of policing? Oh that’s right, I did.
That's cool. So according to you, saying X religion is evil in public should be a punishable offence. Does that apply to public social media posts too?"I didn’t say that saying a religion is evil in public should be a punishable offence - that’s you inventing things again. I believe that incitement should be and is an offence. Is simply saying ‘this is evil’ incitement? How is it being said? With a loudhailer and banners? Or in a respectful conversation? Is it unprovoked or part of an argument? Now social media is different as SM companies have their own t’s and C’s, plus some unique laws apply there as well. (Not to mention the complexity of company policies which could cause you to lose your job or face disciplinary, regardless) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh by the way, here is a protest against Scientology in front of its headquarters https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyvy980qnlzo If you look at the images of the protests against Scientology, you will see some holding placards saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should people be arrested for doing that? Or is this privilege applicable only for Islam? If the law is upheld correctly, then all acts of incitement should be treated equally, yes. If they’re not, take it up with the police. I’m sure you know better than them about how to deal with this stuff
Such a copout
Again, the progressives turning back time to ask for blasphemy laws just because they love Islam is the funniest turn of events. After all the decades of winning the rights to take down the power of religion over people, you folks want to give the power right back to them
How is it a cop out to say that all incitement should be dealt with the same?
Seriously, explain your logic.
You said I have to take it up to the police. When the Church of Scientology tried to stop the protest, they weren't given heed. The police are very much aware of what happened. As I said the police didn't arrest bible burners too.
This means that two-tier policing exists right?
Didn’t I say it was a failure of policing? Oh that’s right, I did.
That's cool. So according to you, saying X religion is evil in public should be a punishable offence. Does that apply to public social media posts too?
I didn’t say that saying a religion is evil in public should be a punishable offence - that’s you inventing things again.
I believe that incitement should be and is an offence. Is simply saying ‘this is evil’ incitement? How is it being said? With a loudhailer and banners? Or in a respectful conversation? Is it unprovoked or part of an argument?
"Lol.. You are backtracking now. With a loudhailer and banners? The guy who was arrested didn't use any banners or loudhailers either Is it unprovoked or part of an argument? The man was protesting against Islam. He came from a country that is predominantly Muslim. According to your own criteria, he wasn't "inciting violence". " Now social media is different as SM companies have their own t’s and C’s, plus some unique laws apply there as well. (Not to mention the complexity of company policies which could cause you to lose your job or face disciplinary, regardless)" Yeah I know all those things about terms and conditions.But people have been arrested for burning the Quran and posting on Facebook. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Lol.. You are backtracking now. " You’re quick to change peoples worlds and then accuse them of backtracking when they correct you. It’s very poor debate from you. " With a loudhailer and banners? The guy who was arrested didn't use any banners or loudhailers either " Sorry for not putting every possible means of communication. Did he have posters? Did he raise his voice? Was he aggressive in nature? Did he have an amplifier? Did he send smoke signals or have a plane writing slogans in the sky? " The man was protesting against Islam. He came from a country that is predominantly Muslim. " Not sure of the relevance, here. " According to your own criteria, he wasn't "inciting violence". " I didn’t set any criteria, I wrote a couple of examples. " Yeah I know all those things about terms and conditions.But people have been arrested for burning the Quran and posting on Facebook. " People have been arrested for all sorts of things on social media. Why are you singling out this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Sorry for not putting every possible means of communication. Did he have posters? Did he raise his voice? Was he aggressive in nature? Did he have an amplifier? Did he send smoke signals or have a plane writing slogans in the sky? " The guy who was charged yesterday didn't do any of these. It was a peaceful protest which was disrupted by far right thugs. " The man was protesting against Islam. He came from a country that is predominantly Muslim. Not sure of the relevance, here. " Oh it is relevant. You are banning peaceful protests in the name of "inciting violence". According to you, if a gay person from a Christian family oppressed from childhood, goes out in front of a church and shouts "Fuck Christianity" , he should be arrested for "inciting violence". Just like this guy protesting against Islam is somehow "Inciting violence" " Yeah I know all those things about terms and conditions.But people have been arrested for burning the Quran and posting on Facebook. People have been arrested for all sorts of things on social media. Why are you singling out this? " " Because your argument for calling this as "inciting violence" depends a lot on where it was done. So it does matter. How exactly are you going to draw a line between "inciting violence" and a peaceful protest? Every example you gave, someone could be doing it because he was hurt by that religion. A homosexual who was forced to conversion therapy, a woman who was forced to genital mutilation. All of them could show their anger towards the religion by what doing what this guy did..The progressives should technically be supportive of people's rights to do this. And here you are, asking for blasphemy laws just because the religion concerned here is Islam. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The guy who was charged yesterday didn't do any of these. It was a peaceful protest which was disrupted by far right thugs. " If it is genuine peaceful protest (which has a definition) then there should be no arrests. Sadly, like the Sarah Everard thing a few years back, horrendous mistakes are made at vigils and protests. " Oh it is relevant. You are banning peaceful protests in the name of "inciting violence". According to you, if a gay person from a Christian family oppressed from childhood, goes out in front of a church and shouts "Fuck Christianity" , he should be arrested for "inciting violence". Just like this guy protesting against Islam is somehow "Inciting violence"" There you go again, inventing things. I haven’t called for a ban on peaceful protest. If you’re going to invent shit like that, I’m out. Can’t debate with someone who lies so blatantly. " Because your argument for calling this as "inciting violence" depends a lot on where it was done. So it does matter. How exactly are you going to draw a line between "inciting violence" and a peaceful protest? Every example you gave, someone could be doing it because he was hurt by that religion. A homosexual who was forced to conversion therapy, a woman who was forced to genital mutilation. All of them could show their anger towards the religion by what doing what this guy did..The progressives should technically be supportive of people's rights to do this. And here you are, asking for blasphemy laws just because the religion concerned here is Islam." I haven’t asked for blasphemy laws. I want consistent application of existing laws. My stance has remained the same, as you flip-flop, twist worlds and outright lie. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" If it is genuine peaceful protest (which has a definition) then there should be no arrests. Sadly, like the Sarah Everard thing a few years back, horrendous mistakes are made at vigils and protests. " And yet you fail to explain what counts as a peaceful protest. Going by all the examples you gave, the guy who was charged yesterday was doing a peaceful protest and you were happy with him getting arrested. " There you go again, inventing things. I haven’t called for a ban on peaceful protest. If you’re going to invent shit like that, I’m out. Can’t debate with someone who lies so blatantly. " That's funny. I just pointed out the blatant inconsistencies of your ideology just because you are keeping Islam in a pedestal. If an oppressed homosexual from a Christian family burns the bible outside of a Church and shouted "Fuck Christianity", should he be arrested or not? " I haven’t asked for blasphemy laws. I want consistent application of existing laws. My stance has remained the same, as you flip-flop, twist worlds and outright lie. " People are concerned that the existing laws are bad. I am arguing against the current laws. The current laws are backdoor way to enforce blasphemy laws and you have been supporting these laws so far by branding it as "inciting violence". Yet, when you are questioned on where you draw the line between a peaceful protest and "inciting violence", you struggle to give a consistent answer. It's simply because progressive leftists like you always get touchy with Islam to the point that you would give up on every other values you have to defend them. It just proves to the world that you never cared about those values like women's rights, gay rights or individual freedom in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? " It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark." Yeah, thanks for not understanding a thing about censorship. Once again, read Fahrenheit 451 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So burning a book is an act of incitement and should be arrested. Now apply the example I used before. A woman who escaped from Iranian oppression comes here and burns the Quran in public to display her angst. Should she be arrested? Did I say book burning should always be arrested? Should I say that incitement Shiism always be arrested? Or are you yet again reading things I didn’t say?" So what exactly does this part mean?
" Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. " You just said that burning a book is always a provocative act. And you have been arguing for a long time that such provocative acts should be illegal. So do you think this woman from Iran is doing a proactive act? About censorship, is it censorship if I burn Mein Kempf just because Hitler is evil? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark. Yeah, thanks for not understanding a thing about censorship. Once again, read Fahrenheit 451" So one person has the power to impose censorship on seventy million people when they can walk into any shop and buy copies of the same book, or when any mosque will give them a free copy if they ask. I suggest that you don’t really understand what censorship is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark. Yeah, thanks for not understanding a thing about censorship. Once again, read Fahrenheit 451 So one person has the power to impose censorship on seventy million people when they can walk into any shop and buy copies of the same book, or when any mosque will give them a free copy if they ask. I suggest that you don’t really understand what censorship is." No, it’s definitely you. If a thousand people are of a belief, and one is silenced - you have censored them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So burning a book is an act of incitement and should be arrested. Now apply the example I used before. A woman who escaped from Iranian oppression comes here and burns the Quran in public to display her angst. Should she be arrested? Did I say book burning should always be arrested? Should I say that incitement Shiism always be arrested? Or are you yet again reading things I didn’t say? So what exactly does this part mean?
Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement.
I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship.
You just said that burning a book is always a provocative act. And you have been arguing for a long time that such provocative acts should be illegal.
So do you think this woman from Iran is doing a proactive act?
About censorship, is it censorship if I burn Mein Kempf just because Hitler is evil?"Burning a book is always a provocative act. I have not argued for all acts of provocation to be arrestable. Once again you’re making things up. And yes, it would be a provocative act to burn mein kampf. Nazis burned books, did they not? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark. Yeah, thanks for not understanding a thing about censorship. Once again, read Fahrenheit 451 So one person has the power to impose censorship on seventy million people when they can walk into any shop and buy copies of the same book, or when any mosque will give them a free copy if they ask. I suggest that you don’t really understand what censorship is. No, it’s definitely you. If a thousand people are of a belief, and one is silenced - you have censored them. " If your take away from reading Fahrenheit 451 is that an individual burning a religious book as an act of protest is censorship, you definitely have to read it again. The book at a higher level is about how governments control thoughts using authoritarianism. You are actually here supporting that kind of authoritarianism. The whole argument you are making here is evidence that the horseshoe theory is real. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark. Yeah, thanks for not understanding a thing about censorship. Once again, read Fahrenheit 451 So one person has the power to impose censorship on seventy million people when they can walk into any shop and buy copies of the same book, or when any mosque will give them a free copy if they ask. I suggest that you don’t really understand what censorship is. No, it’s definitely you. If a thousand people are of a belief, and one is silenced - you have censored them. If your take away from reading Fahrenheit 451 is that an individual burning a religious book as an act of protest is censorship, you definitely have to read it again. The book at a higher level is about how governments control thoughts using authoritarianism. You are actually here supporting that kind of authoritarianism. The whole argument you are making here is evidence that the horseshoe theory is real." I studied the book in higher education, thanks
You support the burning of books. Particularly one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Burning a book is always a provocative act. I have not argued for all acts of provocation to be arrestable. Once again you’re making things up. " Interesting. So when does it get arrestable? " And yes, it would be a provocative act to burn mein kampf. " I asked if it's censorship | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Where we *fundamentally* disagree is whether the act of burning a book (any book) is a provocative act. An act of incitement. I believe 100% that it is - for the simple fact that a book is a harmless inanimate object. The act of burning it has no purpose *except* to cause a reaction. Burning It is an act of censorship. If one seeks that reaction, it’s fair to ask why they are doing so? What was the purpose behind it? It isn’t an act of censorship. Other copies of the book are widely available. If you care to visit central Birmingham copies of the Koran are given out at no charge on a daily basis by adherents manning stalls just outside Primark. Yeah, thanks for not understanding a thing about censorship. Once again, read Fahrenheit 451 So one person has the power to impose censorship on seventy million people when they can walk into any shop and buy copies of the same book, or when any mosque will give them a free copy if they ask. I suggest that you don’t really understand what censorship is. No, it’s definitely you. If a thousand people are of a belief, and one is silenced - you have censored them. If your take away from reading Fahrenheit 451 is that an individual burning a religious book as an act of protest is censorship, you definitely have to read it again. The book at a higher level is about how governments control thoughts using authoritarianism. You are actually here supporting that kind of authoritarianism. The whole argument you are making here is evidence that the horseshoe theory is real. I studied the book in higher education, thanks
You support the burning of books. Particularly one. "I support an individual's freedom to burn one's own book even if it offends the far right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Interesting. So when does it get arrestable? " That’s for the police to decide, is it not? Each case will differ. Do you disagree? " I asked if it's censorship " IMO? Yes it is. We can’t burn books simply because we disagree with them or their author. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I support an individual's freedom to burn one's own book even if it offends the far right " Then you are a supporter of censorship and attacks on learning. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I support an individual's freedom to burn one's own book even if it offends the far right Then you are a supporter of censorship and attacks on learning." There are millions of copies of each book. Not to mention the soft copies in the internet with multiple levels of redundancy across the world. According to you, one person burning his book in an act of protest is censorship? I have to say, this is the funniest debate I have ever had with a progressive left. After all the gymnastics around "inciting violence" and "being provocative", you have finally landed on "censorship" as an argument? Someone who wants the government to arrest people for peaceful protests doesn't have the right to complain about censorship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Someone who wants the government to arrest people for peaceful protests doesn't have the right to complain about censorship." I’ve given you enough warnings about your lies, yet still you persist. I’m out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". Someone who wants the government to arrest people for peaceful protests doesn't have the right to complain about censorship. I’ve given you enough warnings about your lies, yet still you persist. I’m out. " The whole thread is about a guy doing a peaceful protest outside and embassy. You have been supportive of the arrest and you haven't given any evidence so far on why it's not really a peaceful protest. Yeah I am the liar here. Have a good day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Interesting. So when does it get arrestable? That’s for the police to decide, is it not? Each case will differ. Do you disagree? I asked if it's censorship IMO? Yes it is. We can’t burn books simply because we disagree with them or their author. " It is not the police’s role to decide what breaks the law. The law defines criminality the police enforce it. Is the law clear enough that burning a book is not an act that would lead to arrest? Owning and burning your own book as a protest is personal expression, a demonstration not censorship. Lastly, burning the Quran is not the issue, it is the language being used while burning the book that leads to an arrest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have read a couple of reports about slices of bacon, being wedged between the pages of Qurans in public places. This really did cause public outrage, and I’m absolutely not condoning it. Obviously…" Seems like a pointless waste of perfectly good bacon tbf. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have been consistent in my viewpoint, I have provided objective and sensible examples. The Scientology example does not stand up to scrutiny. Having read some of the background information, there were no grounds to grant a PSPO. " Completely irrelevant to the point I made. Protestors held a banner saying "Scientology is an evil cult". Should they not be arrested if someone saying "Fuck Islam" is arrested? " Individuals have protected characteristic BECAUSE the belong to a WIDER group that is commonly prejudiced against. The wider community also is protected - that's why when a Synagogue is graffiti'd with that emblem used widely in Germany in WWII it is a hate crime. The crime being criminal damage and the use of the emblem being linked to mass genocide being the hate element. There are several steps to genocide and we are seeing those steps, in the UK, definitely the first two. We are not far from the third step. America is closer to step 3. " Of course, an ex-muslim burning the Islamic religious book is literally taking us towards Nazism. You are actually supporting far right extremists by supporting these laws that ban mockery of religion. " Burning a book becomes arrestable if the person burning the book is expressing prejudice, hostility, ill-will (it's all in the above link) towards people who hold that book in high regard. Again, a quick search of the topic should clear that up. However, to understand nuances in how it is enforced requires some critical thinking, risk assessing etc. " Skills you seem to have in plenty. I am mightily impressed. With those wonderful skills, can you answer this question - If a woman who escaped from Islamic oppression in Iran came here, went in front of Iranian embassy, burned the Quran and shouted "Fuck Islam" in a way of protest against the religious oppression she endured in her life, do you think she should be arrested? " On that note, have a lovely day!!! Mazel tov, shubh din, assalamu alaykum, prynhawn da!" OMG! This is amazing. You must be such a great diversity lover and morally superior to everyone else ❤️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
". I support an individual's freedom to burn one's own book even if it offends the far right Then you are a supporter of censorship and attacks on learning. There are millions of copies of each book. Not to mention the soft copies in the internet with multiple levels of redundancy across the world. According to you, one person burning his book in an act of protest is censorship? I have to say, this is the funniest debate I have ever had with a progressive left. After all the gymnastics around "inciting violence" and "being provocative", you have finally landed on "censorship" as an argument? Someone who wants the government to arrest people for peaceful protests doesn't have the right to complain about censorship." This is what I'm struggling with. Why is burning a book censorship. If I by a book and burn it, who am I censoring. I get that burning certain books outside certain establishments could be seen as provocative but unless the book I burn is either owned by someone else or is the only copy then who is being deprived. If anything I am inflicting a loss on myself | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Any news on that Schoolteacher from Batley ? There must have been hundreds of arrests over the threats to kill him. "Even with the guy who was convicted yesterday, two far right thugs attacked him violently. Only one of them was charged. No mention of the other. Two tier policing at its finest. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
