• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    But then you could always pretend to be offended by something to get it banned. I understand that by your definition it would only include things done to spite other people but the line is thin. And it would create a dangerous precedent for the freedom of expression.

    I might become offended by people wearing a tie. If it becomes well-known, should we ban ties?

    I agree that in an ideal world, people shouldn’t be assholes and burn Qur’ans just to antagonise people. But it should also be clear to the offended people, that this actually harms no one. It’s like burning a dictionary. It’s idiotic but harmless. If you expect to live in an open society, you have to realise that the book of your religion is just an object.

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      01 year ago

      What I’m getting at is not the victim’s view of it, but the perpetrator’s intent. If you can prove that harmful intent, then there would be a crime. Granted, that would be incredibly easy to subvert and get around, and kind of rightly so - it can only be a relatively low level of non-physical harm.

      But it is still harm, in the form of causing emotional distress. People aren’t burning Qurans because they feel oppressed by Qurans or what they represent, they’re not disposing of possessions they no longer want, they’re doing it to upset Muslims. Burning a dictionary isn’t the same, a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.

        That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.

        • TWeaK
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          It’s not a perfect example, but I’m not sure there really is one. However it’s a much better example than burning a dictionary.

          The fact is, there are few similar symbols that a non-religious person would hold precious in the same way a religious person would theirs, so examples are not going to get this right. That doesn’t mean that a religious person’s sentiment should be disregarded entirely, not when the whole intent is to use that to cause them harm.

            • TWeaK
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              Society isn’t. However society should have some respect for citizens and what they hold value to.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Respect is not laughing in someones face when they talk about their imaginary friend - no more.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -21 year ago

          though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object’s perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              and that is where conflict comes from. some value an imaginary god while others do not. it is idiotic to you, but not to them. again, i was not defending the idea, just the other commenter’s example.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,… which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.