5 ms·

How does that argument not also apply to blasphemy laws?

by NikolaeVarius 9y ago

davidw 9y ago
Blasphemy laws regard a victim that is not real.
- jimmywanger 9y ago
  You realize that in itself is hate speech right. You are denying my diety.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  Blasphemy laws often frame the deed as (a) hurting the feelings of believers and/or (b) causing social unrest and/or (c) disturbing public order. You certainly can consider a very large set of potential victims - there are a lot of real people who get gravely offended by cases of blasphemy. Your statement that God isn't real is, in the eyes of such court, saying something clearly untrue that offends others and harms the social order. The existence and reality of God is an undisputed axiom in many legal systems - the court will rule that God is real, the legal acts will explicitly state that God is real, and it might even be enshrined in their constitution as a fact above all law. It's even plausible that the holy text e.g. Quran is the basis of all law there; there may be additional regulations but the core of law comes from God.
  - acqq 9y ago
    There's no "god" in the constitution. What states like Saudi Arabia or Iran do in their law should simply not be accepted. Even Turkey was officially secular until at least recently.
    - PeterisP 9y ago
      Which constitution? There's no "the" constitution, it's just as valid to say that there's no free speech in the constitution because, frankly, having free speech in constitution in just as rare as having god in constitution. I'd agree that it would be nice that if it was differently, but saying "shouldn't be accepted" is just like wishing for a pony, it has no connection to reality - we simply don't get a say in such matters, and I'd bet dollars to pennies that a magical totally fair democratic vote in those countries would prove that the average voter there definitely supports prohibiting blasphemy and restricting speech to do so. It's ridiculous to simply unilaterally declare that your moral system is more valid than someone else's, and forcing your constitution on some other place is just as reasonable as someone else wanting to replace your constitution with theirs.
      - stale2002 9y ago
        "It's ridiculous to simply unilaterally declare that your moral system is more valid than someone else's". Well my moral system is that I can do exactly that. If morality is relative, then your opinion that I shouldn't do this isn't any better than my opinion that I should do this. So I am just going to go ahead and do that. What, are you going to call me immoral? YOU are the one who believes in moral relativism.
        acqq 9y ago
        I agree with that. Once we accept the false premise that "all are the same" we'll let the most intolerant and the most backward win. And accepting the complaints of those "offended" is giving up to the real and destructive backwardness. Too many people take our current state for granted. It is actually the result of the centuries of the fight against the backwardness (especially religious). If we give up we'll lose what we've already and with a lot of fight achieved. We have to offend the superstitious and those that want to protect the backwardness, otherwise we're doing it wrong, and we'll lose so much we can't even imagine. We have what we have today in spite of the religious texts not because of tbem. Otherwise there would still be more burnings at the stake and beheadings. Not to mention the treatment of the women. We should never forget that, and we should act. It's getting critical again.
        PeterisP 9y ago
        That being said, what about North Korea? If literal concentration camps or starving literal millions of people to death aren't sufficient to bring real action, is it realistic to believe that free speech of all things will be the reason because of which we will start to topple regimes that we consider immoral? If we can achieve a consensus sufficient for action on regimes who kill and torture people just because, then it might be appropriate to consider stopping (as opposed to just criticizing) regimes that simply repress people not following an arbitrary social code of conduct.
        acqq 9y ago
eridius 9y ago
Blasphemy is not hate speech. It doesn't incite to violence, it's not bad for mental health, and it doesn't discriminate. It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them.
- jquery 9y ago
  > It doesn't incite to violence Charlie Hebdo > it's not bad for mental health Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. > it doesn't discriminate Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. > It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them. Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. In the West we've largely decided that the benefits of free speech outweigh the costs.
  - eridius 9y ago
    > Charlie Hebdo That's not even remotely what "incitement to violence" means. > Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. People blaspheming is not generally believed to cause religious adherents to lose faith. And even if it did, losing faith is not generally considered to be harmful either. > It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. Citation please. I've never heard this argument before. And since you brought it up, I could just as easily say that losing religion can help cure mental issues. A classic example would be a gay person who has been brought up to believe that they're going to hell for being gay. Losing religion is probably the best thing that could happen to their mental health. > Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. "it doesn't discriminate" doesn't mean all religions are equally blasphemed, and I can't imagine what sort of confusion would lead you to think that made any sense. > Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. Wrong type of harm. You're talking about spreading ideas that people don't like. I'm talking about the very words themselves harming the victims.

How does that argument not also apply to blasphemy laws?

davidw 9y ago

Blasphemy laws regard a victim that is not real.

jimmywanger 9y ago
You realize that in itself is hate speech right. You are denying my diety.
PeterisP 9y ago
Blasphemy laws often frame the deed as (a) hurting the feelings of believers and/or (b) causing social unrest and/or (c) disturbing public order. You certainly can consider a very large set of potential victims - there are a lot of real people who get gravely offended by cases of blasphemy. Your statement that God isn't real is, in the eyes of such court, saying something clearly untrue that offends others and harms the social order. The existence and reality of God is an undisputed axiom in many legal systems - the court will rule that God is real, the legal acts will explicitly state that God is real, and it might even be enshrined in their constitution as a fact above all law. It's even plausible that the holy text e.g. Quran is the basis of all law there; there may be additional regulations but the core of law comes from God.
- acqq 9y ago
  There's no "god" in the constitution. What states like Saudi Arabia or Iran do in their law should simply not be accepted. Even Turkey was officially secular until at least recently.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    Which constitution? There's no "the" constitution, it's just as valid to say that there's no free speech in the constitution because, frankly, having free speech in constitution in just as rare as having god in constitution. I'd agree that it would be nice that if it was differently, but saying "shouldn't be accepted" is just like wishing for a pony, it has no connection to reality - we simply don't get a say in such matters, and I'd bet dollars to pennies that a magical totally fair democratic vote in those countries would prove that the average voter there definitely supports prohibiting blasphemy and restricting speech to do so. It's ridiculous to simply unilaterally declare that your moral system is more valid than someone else's, and forcing your constitution on some other place is just as reasonable as someone else wanting to replace your constitution with theirs.
    - stale2002 9y ago
      "It's ridiculous to simply unilaterally declare that your moral system is more valid than someone else's". Well my moral system is that I can do exactly that. If morality is relative, then your opinion that I shouldn't do this isn't any better than my opinion that I should do this. So I am just going to go ahead and do that. What, are you going to call me immoral? YOU are the one who believes in moral relativism.
      - acqq 9y ago
        I agree with that. Once we accept the false premise that "all are the same" we'll let the most intolerant and the most backward win. And accepting the complaints of those "offended" is giving up to the real and destructive backwardness. Too many people take our current state for granted. It is actually the result of the centuries of the fight against the backwardness (especially religious). If we give up we'll lose what we've already and with a lot of fight achieved. We have to offend the superstitious and those that want to protect the backwardness, otherwise we're doing it wrong, and we'll lose so much we can't even imagine. We have what we have today in spite of the religious texts not because of tbem. Otherwise there would still be more burnings at the stake and beheadings. Not to mention the treatment of the women. We should never forget that, and we should act. It's getting critical again.
        PeterisP 9y ago
        That being said, what about North Korea? If literal concentration camps or starving literal millions of people to death aren't sufficient to bring real action, is it realistic to believe that free speech of all things will be the reason because of which we will start to topple regimes that we consider immoral? If we can achieve a consensus sufficient for action on regimes who kill and torture people just because, then it might be appropriate to consider stopping (as opposed to just criticizing) regimes that simply repress people not following an arbitrary social code of conduct.
        acqq 9y ago

eridius 9y ago

Blasphemy is not hate speech. It doesn't incite to violence, it's not bad for mental health, and it doesn't discriminate. It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them.

jquery 9y ago
> It doesn't incite to violence Charlie Hebdo > it's not bad for mental health Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. > it doesn't discriminate Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. > It doesn't actually harm people, it merely offends them. Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. In the West we've largely decided that the benefits of free speech outweigh the costs.
- eridius 9y ago
  > Charlie Hebdo That's not even remotely what "incitement to violence" means. > Causing someone to doubt and/or lose their religion is extremely damaging. People blaspheming is not generally believed to cause religious adherents to lose faith. And even if it did, losing faith is not generally considered to be harmful either. > It can lead to depression, anxiety, and other mental health crisis. Citation please. I've never heard this argument before. And since you brought it up, I could just as easily say that losing religion can help cure mental issues. A classic example would be a gay person who has been brought up to believe that they're going to hell for being gay. Losing religion is probably the best thing that could happen to their mental health. > Islam gets a lot more flak, than, say, Buddhists. "it doesn't discriminate" doesn't mean all religions are equally blasphemed, and I can't imagine what sort of confusion would lead you to think that made any sense. > Speech is a weapon and can be very harmful. That's one of the major reasons totalitarian governments are terrified of free speech. Wrong type of harm. You're talking about spreading ideas that people don't like. I'm talking about the very words themselves harming the victims.