Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[BjornP]

Implying marxists don't institute their own blasphemy laws. What is the criminalization of "hate speech" if not a blasphemy law?

The reason it isn't, is because the blasphemy was aimed at the religion, ie. the beliefs themselves. Hate speech laws are aimed the individuals who practise those beliefs. While both run counter to the spirit of free speech, the subject of their defense is thus different.

I disagree. These laws are totally aimed at belief, i.e. the belief that the Holocaust never happened or the belief that a large percentage of Muslims will never successfully integrate into western civilization are the targets of those laws. The impetus very much is a religion. Marxism is religious in its nature, and the people who practice the neo-marxism we see today very much act like religious fanatics in all things.

The belief in diversity == good and tolerance == highest virtue belie a religious value system. The neo-marxists have blind faith in their marxist ideologies and they will get violent with anybody who speaks heresy within that ideology.

To claim that women are not as good as men at some jobs is literally a heresy in the marxist religion. They can get violent when you express that heresy.

It's a religion and these laws that they pass are no different than heresy and blasphemy laws.

I am referring to the Danish hate speech law vs the blasphemy law, specifically. One is about the abstract religion, removed from the people practising it, the other is exclusively about the people practising it. Compare the two laws, the now defunct blasphemy law dating from 1866:

§140. Any who in public mocks or degrades any in this country legally existing religious community's articles of faith or worship, is punished with fine or prison up to four months.

Compare that our still existing law that states:

§ 266b. Any who in public, or with intent to disseminate to a wider audience, makes utterances of any character, by which a group of persons are threatened, degraded or mock because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation, is punished by fine or prison up to two years.

You may disagree with the spirit of both laws. So do I, but the difference in wording ought to make it clear. One is about punishing people for mocking simply the abstract beliefs, holy texts, rituals and other abstracts of a religion. The other law is aimed at persons. Burning a Koran was illegal as per the old blasphemy law, but not per the other law.

[TheReal_ND]

You win this round Junker.

[Speaker to Animals]

So what do you have to do to keep it clean besides what little we have to do?

The only thing different is having to pull the foreskin back with one hand, while washing the glans and the other side of the foreskin with the other. It's not excatly rocket science, nor time-consuming, StA.

Seriously, I'm dying to know how much more difficult you must think it must be to clean one's dick with foreskin.

I don't really know. I held no opinion on the additional difficulties of maintaining a monkey penis.

[Hastur]

Regarding foreskins. Do you have your knives in a sheath or just rattling about in some drawer?

[Speaker to Animals]

The reason it isn't, is because the blasphemy was aimed at the religion, ie. the beliefs themselves. Hate speech laws are aimed the individuals who practise those beliefs. While both run counter to the spirit of free speech, the subject of their defense is thus different.

I disagree. These laws are totally aimed at belief, i.e. the belief that the Holocaust never happened or the belief that a large percentage of Muslims will never successfully integrate into western civilization are the targets of those laws. The impetus very much is a religion. Marxism is religious in its nature, and the people who practice the neo-marxism we see today very much act like religious fanatics in all things.

The belief in diversity == good and tolerance == highest virtue belie a religious value system. The neo-marxists have blind faith in their marxist ideologies and they will get violent with anybody who speaks heresy within that ideology.

To claim that women are not as good as men at some jobs is literally a heresy in the marxist religion. They can get violent when you express that heresy.

It's a religion and these laws that they pass are no different than heresy and blasphemy laws.

I am referring to the Danish hate speech law vs the blasphemy law, specifically. One is about the abstract religion, removed from the people practising it, the other is exclusively about the people practising it. Compare the two laws, the now defunct blasphemy law dating from 1866:

§140. Any who in public mocks or degrades any in this country legally existing religious community's articles of faith or worship, is punished with fine or prison up to four months.

Compare that our still existing law that states:

§ 266b. Any who in public, or with intent to disseminate to a wider audience, makes utterances of any character, by which a group of persons are threatened, degraded or mock because of their race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation, is punished by fine or prison up to two years.

You may disagree with the spirit of both laws. So do I, but the difference in wording ought to make it clear. One is about punishing people for mocking simply the abstract beliefs, holy texts, rituals and other abstracts of a religion. The other law is aimed at persons. Burning a Koran was illegal as per the old blasphemy law, but not per the other law.

The point being that this neo-marxism that has gripped the western world is very much a religion, dude. They are both "blasphemy" laws regardless of what people choose to name them.

[BjornP]

The point being that this neo-marxism that has gripped the western world is very much a religion, dude. They are both "blasphemy" laws regardless of what people choose to name them.

No. Call things what they are, not what you feel they should be called please, StA. Blasphemy law is a law against blasphemy in the real sense, not in a figurative sense. Hate speech laws are hate speech laws. You're not adding anything, not making a better argument, by calling them blasphemy laws when they're factually not.

Those you call various forms of "Marxism", those who hate everything about their own Western civilization/feminists/etc., indeed do act like a religion. Favorite comparison would be Scientology, because they believe in hilarious pseudo-science, feel-good-ism, and pay loads of money to get into institutions that simply tell them whatever they want to hear.

But you know that they're not actually religions. They have all the hallmarks of one, they are superstituous, anti-science, fanatical. But like the actual, red flag, stars and sickle Communists back in the day, they're not religions. They're ideologies, or philosophies.

I know what you mean, StA. Especially on a grander scale. Which is precisely why you don't need to use words like "blasphemy" in a figurative sense in the context of an actual law on actual blasphemy - as in mockery of God and religion getting abolished. The blasphemy law I was referring to, has absolutely nothing to do with "Marxism". It was 151 years old. There weren't any Communist, or even Socialist parties in Denmark back then. And as I wrote earlier, the Marxist party in Denmark were the ones who drafted the bill to abolish the law earlier this year, and both the Socialist/Green party vote for and so did the most immigrant-friendly party the Social Liberal party. So your "Marxists are the ones pushing for these sorts of laws" theory, is easily proven factually wrong in this case. Try to realize, StA. What characterizes the left in your country is not the same as what characterizes the left everywhere else.

[Speaker to Animals]

It isn't about feelings. It's inherently a religious movement. A religion doesn't need a belief in God to be a religion. Buddhism has no God. We are literally dealing with a religion and fanatic ally religious people. Privelege is their original sin. One could go down the list of all the religious aspects of this movement.

[BjornP]

It isn't about feelings. It's inherently a religious movement. A religion doesn't need a belief in God to be a religion. Buddhism has no God. We are literally dealing with a religion and fanatic ally religious people. Privelege is their original sin. One could go down the list of all the religious aspects of this movement.

But it does need a spiritual component to be called a religion. Come on, StA. They're an idiotic movement, an ideological movement. Not a religious one. I get calling them like a religion, and that they have some of the aspects of religion. That does no religion make. There is, and should be, no rhetorical or political need to call them a religion, when we all know that ideologies have the same history of extreme dogmatism, punishing those who stray from the lain out path, etc.

[SuburbanFarmer]

hooray for those highly qualified voodoo doctors from Africa and Australia

Oh god you don't even want to know what abbos in Australia used to do to their dicks. Oh god it's fucking horrifying

Oh. Oh.. you fucker. I just googled it. I did not need that, ND. And I thought Australia was fucked just because of their wildlife that wants to kill everyone.

What. In the FUCK. :whoa:

That one's gonna stay with me.

[TheReal_ND]

You can't unknow these things. I told you.