5 ms·

Next time you make an argument like this you might want to try to make one that isn’t easily debunked by a quick google search: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/20

by dangus 10mo ago

Next time you make an argument like this you might want to try to make one that isn’t easily debunked by a quick google search: https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jail-for-lese-majesty/ https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2023/01/07/belgians-to-skip-jai... Belgians are allowed to criticize the monarchy and the only protections the king has are the same defamation protections that every citizen has. As far as being disallowed from denying the holocaust, there are very obvious good reasons for that law in Germany. I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing without looking pro-fascist. Remember the tolerance paradox. Tolerating intolerance is not something that promotes personal liberty and freedom.

whynotmaybe 10mo ago
I left Europe decades ago and now I stand corrected, the law's been repealed in 2023 based on judgment from 2021. > I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing I'm not here for that, I was just stating facts. Each country/culture/civilization has their own characterization of good and bad. Some goes as far as saying that tolerance for everything is "good" and that if you don't tolerate everything you're "bad".
- dangus 10mo ago
  Respectfully, you brought it up. Now when pressed on the issue YOU brought up you pivot to saying "I'm not here for that" and "I'm just stating facts." You were clearly trying to make an argument to say that the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech. So back up your argument! In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with.
  - whynotmaybe 10mo ago
    Not at all, I guess the way I've phrased it made you misunderstand it but when I wrote "It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited.", I don't see how you can interpret this as "the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech". You're making a shortcut, maybe based on the fact that usually some people use this arguments to complain about EU. > In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with. No, you're wrong from the beginning. I think it's an excellent thing that there are restrictions on public freedom of speech and what I wrote is merely a stating of facts. You find my arguments weak because they only exist in your imagination.
    - dangus 10mo ago
      You’re right, I read it more as an argument against that system. In retrospect as I re-read you indeed never made that argument, even if the same facts support those who do.

by dangus 10mo ago

whynotmaybe 10mo ago

I left Europe decades ago and now I stand corrected, the law's been repealed in 2023 based on judgment from 2021. > I’d love for you to attempt to explain how it’s a bad thing I'm not here for that, I was just stating facts. Each country/culture/civilization has their own characterization of good and bad. Some goes as far as saying that tolerance for everything is "good" and that if you don't tolerate everything you're "bad".

dangus 10mo ago
Respectfully, you brought it up. Now when pressed on the issue YOU brought up you pivot to saying "I'm not here for that" and "I'm just stating facts." You were clearly trying to make an argument to say that the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech. So back up your argument! In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with.
- whynotmaybe 10mo ago
  Not at all, I guess the way I've phrased it made you misunderstand it but when I wrote "It's by design and has always be in many European countries that you can say anything you want except what is prohibited.", I don't see how you can interpret this as "the EU is being unfairly restrictive of speech". You're making a shortcut, maybe based on the fact that usually some people use this arguments to complain about EU. > In my opinion, you are refusing to back it up because your statements were weak to begin with. No, you're wrong from the beginning. I think it's an excellent thing that there are restrictions on public freedom of speech and what I wrote is merely a stating of facts. You find my arguments weak because they only exist in your imagination.
  - dangus 10mo ago
    You’re right, I read it more as an argument against that system. In retrospect as I re-read you indeed never made that argument, even if the same facts support those who do.