World News

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

I think this may already be illegal. You would be inciting and degrading members of a legal religion in Denmark, which has been against the law there since 1939. Blasphemy Laws were taken off the books in 2017, but this is a step back in that same direction. But then there is amendments to the constitution, I don't fully understand.

parent

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Hinduism often has a belief in, "sanctity of the cow, ... the belief that the cow is representative of divine and natural beneficence and should therefore be protected and venerated" (Brittanica).

One could argue that eating beef is inciting and degrading to [probably a select few] members of Hinduism.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] awwwyissss@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

The difference is Hindus won't murder you.

parent

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago

I like this talking point

parent

[–] anewbeginning@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

Well plated beef is divine.

parent

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

I think there's a difference between eating beef in a place where that's the norm and eating beef at a group of people to make them angry or mock them.

parent

[–] mintyfrog@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago*

But for the Quran, "in public" is sufficient to meet the standard of "at" them?

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

What are your intentions behind doing this in your hypothetical scenario?

parent

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

To find out where people are willing to draw the line. I've noticed that the people defending this proposed law are giving this question a wide berth.

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I'm asking what your intentions are behind drawing on a whiteboard outside a mosque in the scenario not what your intentions were behind posing this hypothetical scenario. That part is obvious.

parent

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The intention isn’t relevant.

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Sure it is. Intent is what separates murder from manslaughter for instance. Intent definitely matters here. Why are you having trouble elaborating on that aspect of your hypothetical scenario.

parent

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Fine, two scenarios: first, I’m doing it because I’m Islamophobic. Second, I’m doing it to test the limits of free speech. Can you tell the difference? No. That’s why it’s not relevant.

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You don't see the difference between these two scenarios? It may benefit you to learn about nuance.

parent

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

It may benefit you to pay attention to what I'm saying. Could you tell the difference?

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

What you're saying here doesn't make any sense. What you said previously made sense but lacked nuance or any deeper understanding of the situation you proposed yourself.

Perhaps you think blatant, ignorant bigotry and "testing freedom of speech" are the same thing, which explains your response, and shows you the reasoning behind mine.

parent

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Oh boy. No, I don't think they are the "same thing" I'm saying you can't infer motivation just by observing therefore the motivation isn't relevant. Try and keep up, or don't.

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You're discussing the law and being arrested. Intent absolutely matters in this context which is why I brought up other examples of where intent matters as murder/manslaughter, hate crimes, assault versus self defense, etc. You seem quite confused about a topic that you brought up on your own...

parent

[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

You're not thinking clearly. Intent is irrelevant, it can't be known in this example. Got it?

Just in case, here it is again. Intent is irrelevant.

parent

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 1 point 2 years ago

But you defined the intent in your previous comment and laws/courts take intent into account when determining whether they've been violated or not.

If it can't be known then your entire question/scenario is irrelevant and pointless because it could never apply to the real world. For someone who keeps talking about confusion and not following the conversation, you seem to lack even a basic understanding of what's being talked about.