|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 2, 2017 23:19:12 GMT
You dont thnk a situation would arise where the offense etc caused by prohibiting something is less then if it wasnt prohibited is possible? Ignoring problems with quantifying one person's offense versus another's (the problems we have to ignore are the assumption that there would be ways to say that they're the same quality-wise, but just different quantity-wise), sure that's possible, but I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided." And that's absolutely the problem when you try to quantify something like this - it's impossible. Take a fairly abstract example. If someone came up to me at random and told me shirt didn't go well with my jacket I wouldn't really care. At worst it might make me think for a second or longer the next day when I was getting dressed. That's it. But you could have someone else who lives for fashion and their appearance. They might take a great deal of offence at that comment. Both the comment itself and the fact that a stranger felt able to come up and tell them that. If there was some procedure for dealing with offence received would it be in any way justifiable that the person who made the comment (who may have have been trying to be genuinely helpful rather than hurtful - we don't know) would receive a different punishment purely based on how their comment was taken - either indifference or a terrible insult. The result would be that people would start minimising contact with anyone they didn't know very, very well because you have no idea how people are going to react to even the most innocent of comments at times. (e.g. "It's a lovely day, isn't it?" "You bastard by gran just died, how could you?" "Well how was I to know...?")
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 3, 2017 3:27:32 GMT
Last year is new/recent. I can't find any figures on arrests for blasphemy, but the mere fact that it is illegal to blaspheme and the laws were recently introduced (i.e. not archaic laws that are never used but just haven't been taken off the books) has a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Ireland has had blasphemy laws since the consititution of 1937. Though it didnt specify any punishments it just said blasphemous libel is prohibited. The government in the south of Ireland decided in 2009 that they would finally add to the law and specify a punishment, which was a fine, something like 2500 euros, I cant remember. The laws arent new. Anyway they will be gone soon. The government has promised a referendum on the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Proposed_referendumThat's kinda my point. There isn't an issue regarding a resurgence in enforcing blasphemy laws.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 3, 2017 17:59:49 GMT
You dont thnk a situation would arise where the offense etc caused by prohibiting something is less then if it wasnt prohibited is possible? Ignoring problems with quantifying one person's offense versus another's (the problems we have to ignore are the assumption that there would be ways to say that they're the same quality-wise, but just different quantity-wise), sure that's possible, but I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided." "I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided."" Why is that?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 3, 2017 21:27:18 GMT
Ignoring problems with quantifying one person's offense versus another's (the problems we have to ignore are the assumption that there would be ways to say that they're the same quality-wise, but just different quantity-wise), sure that's possible, but I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided." "I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided."" Why is that? Because I don't see offense as a problem. And insofar as it occurs and one would want it not to occur, one should proceed in my opinion by analyzing why, exactly, one finds the thing(s) in question offensive and then one should work on an interpretational scheme that avoids that reaction.
|
|
vomisacaasi
Sophomore
@vomisacaasi
Posts: 186
Likes: 44
|
Post by vomisacaasi on Mar 3, 2017 21:32:30 GMT
Inciting violence/hatred against people based on race/sexuality/disability or other factors that they have no control over should be an offence. But nobody has the right to be protected from ever having to take any offence. You cannot legislate for what is "offensive" as that will mean different things to different people anyway and the alternative would be to let anyone claim they had been offended by pretty much anything and ask for the offender to be prosecuted. Religion is certainly not an exception to this. If religion really is divinely inspired then anyone committing blasphemy will presumably be punished by the religion's "higher power" later so let's not worry about what they've done in this life too much - most religions seem to be quite good at handing out very extreme post-life punishments from any minor infractions of the rules. If the religion isn't really divinely inspired then "no harm, no foul", right? If it's just a question of trying to protect your religion from people asking awkward question about your religion, then ask yourself why is my religion so flaky that it can't withstand some people asking questions about it?Incitement to violence is illegal. I suspect you know this and are simply trying to differentiate between them and hate speech itself.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 3, 2017 23:30:13 GMT
"I don't agree either with (1) "less offense is better than more", or (2) "offense should be avoided."" Why is that? Because I don't see offense as a problem. And insofar as it occurs and one would want it not to occur, one should proceed in my opinion by analyzing why, exactly, one finds the thing(s) in question offensive and then one should work on an interpretational scheme that avoids that reaction. Why isnt it a problem? People's feelings matter, that is why rape etc is illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 4, 2017 13:05:58 GMT
Because I don't see offense as a problem. And insofar as it occurs and one would want it not to occur, one should proceed in my opinion by analyzing why, exactly, one finds the thing(s) in question offensive and then one should work on an interpretational scheme that avoids that reaction. Why isnt it a problem? People's feelings matter, that is why rape etc is illegal. Mattering is subjective, first off. X matters to S just in case S has particular thoughts about X (S is focused on X, S cares about X, etc.). X doesn't matter to S just in case S doesn't have those thoughts about X. And X doesn't matter non-contextually, because the idea of that is simply incoherent. Mattering is always to someone. Something can matter to someone--many feelings of many people matter to me, for example, without that at all implying to one that we should either forcibly or via significant social pressures try to control the behavior of others (people without the feelings in question) so that particular feelings do not arise in the people we care about. So it doesn't at all follow from "People's feelings matter (to me)" that "We should therefore ban behavior (or socially penalize, ostracize, etc.) that causes certain feelings."
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 4, 2017 13:11:14 GMT
Why isnt it a problem? People's feelings matter, that is why rape etc is illegal. Mattering is subjective, first off. X matters to S just in case S has particular thoughts about X (S is focused on X, S cares about X, etc.). X doesn't matter to S just in case S doesn't have those thoughts about X. And X doesn't matter non-contextually, because the idea of that is simply incoherent. Mattering is always to someone. Something can matter to someone--many feelings of many people matter to me, for example, without that at all implying to one that we should either forcibly or via significant social pressures try to control the behavior of others (people without the feelings in question) so that particular feelings do not arise in the people we care about. So it doesn't at all follow from "People's feelings matter (to me)" that "We should therefore ban behavior (or socially penalize, ostracize, etc.) that causes certain feelings." Why not in certain cases?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 4, 2017 18:40:19 GMT
Mattering is subjective, first off. X matters to S just in case S has particular thoughts about X (S is focused on X, S cares about X, etc.). X doesn't matter to S just in case S doesn't have those thoughts about X. And X doesn't matter non-contextually, because the idea of that is simply incoherent. Mattering is always to someone. Something can matter to someone--many feelings of many people matter to me, for example, without that at all implying to one that we should either forcibly or via significant social pressures try to control the behavior of others (people without the feelings in question) so that particular feelings do not arise in the people we care about. So it doesn't at all follow from "People's feelings matter (to me)" that "We should therefore ban behavior (or socially penalize, ostracize, etc.) that causes certain feelings." Why not in certain cases? Why not what in certain cases? I need you to flesh that out a bit more for me to know what you're referring to.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 4, 2017 18:52:44 GMT
Hate speech laws protect people the state wishes to defend. In Canada the group most affected by "hate crimes" are Jews, so Canada responds by trying to further protection of Muslims, because Diversity. In the UK "Misogyny" is becoming an actual punishable offense, because whether something is said due to hatred of women isn't at all down to interpretation. Misandry, nah thats cool. In Northern Europe, things are being deliberately miscategorised as "racist" to punish them as hate crimes, such as critising the government. See the comic who took the piss out of Ergodan. Note Americans, everything you have said about Trump or Clinton would have been punishable under certain European laws.
Blasphemy laws have no place in Western society and again only protect certain groups. Theists can say whatever they like about atheism and atheists, but I cannot say Islam is bollocks and Christianity is dumb.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 4, 2017 19:02:34 GMT
because whether something is said due to hatred of women isn't at all down to interpretation
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 4, 2017 20:48:36 GMT
because whether something is said due to hatred of women isn't at all down to interpretation Why is that funny?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 5, 2017 9:30:40 GMT
Theists can say whatever they like about atheism and atheists, but I cannot say Islam is bollocks and Christianity is dumb. And yet you say both of these things anyway. On this board going to town on Christianity and Islam will get you an award.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 5, 2017 9:34:02 GMT
No hate speech or blasphemy laws
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 5, 2017 9:46:53 GMT
Why not in certain cases? Why not what in certain cases? I need you to flesh that out a bit more for me to know what you're referring to. Why not stop certain behaviour to stop someone from being offended
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Mar 5, 2017 11:38:57 GMT
Why not what in certain cases? I need you to flesh that out a bit more for me to know what you're referring to. Why not stop certain behaviour to stop someone from being offended Ah. I didn't mean to give the impression that I'd be in favor of banning or socially ostracizing any behavior due to someone finding it offensive. I'm not in favor of that. This phrase, which I had put into quotation marks, "We should therefore ban behavior (or socially penalize, ostracize, etc.) that causes certain feelings," is a mention of views like yours, and I'm assuming in that that you'd not be in favor of banning just any old thing that anyone finds offensive, where the fact that someone finds it offensive is a sufficient justification. I probably should have put the word "certain" before "behavior" rather than before "feelings," although really I suppose it should be before both (unless we're simply assuming that all offense is somehow identical in quality).
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 5, 2017 22:13:10 GMT
Theists can say whatever they like about atheism and atheists, but I cannot say Islam is bollocks and Christianity is dumb. And yet you say both of these things anyway. On this board going to town on Christianity and Islam will get you an award. There are no blasphemy laws in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 5, 2017 22:15:06 GMT
Why not what in certain cases? I need you to flesh that out a bit more for me to know what you're referring to. Why not stop certain behaviour to stop someone from being offended Why not stop all behaviour because somebody is going to be "offended" Why should I give a shit whether a person is "offended" or not?
|
|
|
Post by awhina on Mar 5, 2017 22:36:11 GMT
And yet you say both of these things anyway. On this board going to town on Christianity and Islam will get you an award. There are no blasphemy laws in the UK. I know. That is why I referred specifically to this board.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 6, 2017 18:04:59 GMT
Why not stop certain behaviour to stop someone from being offended Why not stop all behaviour because somebody is going to be "offended" Why should I give a shit whether a person is "offended" or not? If it doesnt infringe on free speech and decreases harm then sure. Because emotional paiin is bad, that is why you should "give a shit".
|
|