105
Denmark plans jail term for burning Quran in public (www.bbc.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1898872

Archived version: https://archive.ph/7EVMt
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825172835/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66602814

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent