Ireland Makes Blasphemy Illegal

@asdf: I think youre doing a littlebit of quote mining here mate He might be totally off topic altogether but I believe that was sarcasm.

 

im just saying that when it all comes to all, free speech is a farce. No one takes free speech serious when the free speech works against them.

You just forget how big a farce free speech is, so long this is only about religion, because then you can use the free speech argument.

 

That observation is completely made up since you dont know me at all (and probably most of the people in here) hence you cant assume that we would act in that way. I for one would go as far as to fight for other peoples right to call me an idiot for the sake of conserving as much freedom in the society as possible. Penn Jillette is a great inspiration for me in that aspect.
However I cant give you rock-solid evidencem, nor can you hence these sort of arguments have no authority unless you take my word for what Ive stated.

 

ok when i said everyone, i did not mean every person. My mistake. aaargh, i cant figure out how to say it correctly. Just dont take it literally lol.

More like the policymakers and the judges - kinda like. You know those who should represent the value of the law.

 

Bwaha, yeah now that i think about it - i really would fight for the freedom of speech, even if it was vs Bas Rutten xD.
HIGGS LETS FIGHT FOR FREEDOMES.

On a serious note - Yes, i would of course honor the right, even if it was used against me, Exe.. Its not a complete farce i assure you. Although, im not sure if it exists in China, and some other countries.

 

Okay, seriously this is a major infraction on the very thing both the EU and the US have been trying to get rid of. This kind of attack on the liberties and freedoms of other peoples violates everything that a democracy stands for. This legislation attacks more then just peoples religious beliefs (Which by the way is other peoples opinion in a democracy. If you decide who to vote for based on religion, then the public has the right to criticize it.) it also attacks peoples political beliefs. Because of this law when ever the country needs to make a decision, and if for what ever reason religion comes into play. Only one voice is going to be heard. Your not just silencing blasphemy your silencing the peoples right to choose for them self's.

 

Anyone who requires protection of their beliefs does not actually believe in them thus Ireland has become the first agnostic state (As opposed to China who recognises people follow religions and supresses them) as the law acknowledges religions are not followed by anyone thus people should not judge others with the false pretension of them being religious and therefore these people must be punished to protect others.

I support this as it equalises everyone in the eyes of the law(d). This law is genius as through great irony it itself commits total blasphemy but most people will think the opposite. I applaude whoever came up with it

 

Democracy doesnt stand for anything. The only thing democracy stands for is that people can vote. Just because you would like democracy to be in a certain way because that what you grew up with, doesnt mean it has to be like that.

 

This whole 'People have the right not to get their beliefs challenged' that exe introduced reminds me of TAE episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucHIPag-m40&feature=channel_page

Now you can actually sue over a bloody bumper sticker in Ireland.

 

watch from 6:40 and onwards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba1I7L8obtA&feature=channel

pretty much sums up what i think

and this:
http://themanicramblingsofaswede.wordpress.com/2009/06/21/sean-kennedy-rant-jehovahs-witnesses/

 

Democracy stands for ability people have to govern themselves. It stands for freedom of choice with out persecution. The fact that you see democracy as nothing more then votes shows you know very little about it.

 

Everyone behold, infront of you is a unique exmplar of naivity, isnt that just cute?

http://freespeechconference.org/top...nd-occupation-coexistence-and-contradictions/

And what about the pedophile-site-ban? Some democratic nations out there says, oh we can not have our citizens watch pedo stuff, so we block this site, this site and this site. But unknown to the public, site number three had nothing to do with pedo stuff, and was saying stuff the public should not know.

kind a like this:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/01/23/so-conroys-internet-filter-wont-block-political-speech-eh/

 

Whats up with the pedophilia all the time? Since when does that have anything to do with freedom of speech?

 

Do you agree with the ban on blasphemy Exe?

Do you accept that i am allowed to slap any religious 'icon' around with my satirical wang until im happy? Because of freedom of speech? (Depending on the grounds one does the 'slapping' of course)

Do you feel that the prevention of this, through a infringment of the freedom of speech is really necessasry to stop an opposing hand against such institutions?

I got kinda lost when you both started talking about websites..

 

wait, i dont get it.


you're saying WE are okay with something, because the american government did something?

 

no im saying that democracy can do fine without free speech. And vice versa, free speech can do fine without democracy, hence democracy and free speech are two seperate independent concepts.

 

I think exe is turning this into one giant mess. Could you, exe, please make your current points loud and clear for us because this isnt leading anywhere.

edit: Yes exe, in strictly technical sence thats true (although in reality its hardly doable) but what does that have to do with the topic again?

 

Now, i have not read the law, but ican imageine that it could have been draften in a version where i agree with it, buti can also imagine that it was drafted in a version where they would have gone too far, and then i would not agree to it.

Well, if you stick to what is facts and science go ahead. But if you say something that is not correct, and therefore is propaganda, then its not good for you.

Forexample you can say
Brian is stupid - its ok, because who is Brian?
Also you can say
Jesus is stupid - its not ok, because Jesus is a religios icon

But this is ofcourse only my personal view, i hope you understand that.

I think its necessasry because otherwise it will get out of control, and before you know it 6 million christians are massacred with Uragan D2. We dont want that to happen, right?

 

I am sorry but if I make myself a religious icon, ask my friends to be my worshipers, do I then get immunity from the law and the constitution? Thats what youre view seems to impose.

edit: and your last point is just facepalm... people who bring that sort of arguments up are more likely to make me kill 6 million christians than the ability to engage in free speech.

 

also, i think the governement should have a list of accepted religions. Because this problem has existed since the invention of the spaghetti monster so its nothing new to me, trust me