Malaysian jailed for 10 years for "insulting Islam"

[The South Falls]

First disrespecting government, then insulting Islam? Are all institutions going to have laws against speaking ill against them? Now I can't insult the DMV lines because they're going to run me over. Is this how this works?

"Behead those who insult the school curriculum!"

Student: Fucking bootleg-ass school. It doesn't teach us shit.

School: READY THE EXECUTION SQUADS!

[Andsed]

Thank you captain obvious. Have a response?

It's just an opinion so the only response necessary is that I disagree.

So no actual response? Got it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It's just an opinion so the only response necessary is that I disagree.

So no actual response? Got it.

You didn't make an argument, what is there to respond to?

[Conserative Morality]

By making political violence a matter of legal consequence, it prevents more political violence. The state (the legal representative of society) having the sole legal right to political violence.

Or it simply acts as the mouthpiece for political violence of the ruling elites thus creating a situation in which the only remedy to oppression is removal of said elites instead of allowing organic societal change.

[Andsed]

So no actual response? Got it.

You didn't make an argument, what is there to respond to?

I did make an argument. I made the argument that I think it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because you are offended by what someone said. This just seems to me you don't have a counter argument.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

So no actual response? Got it.

You didn't make an argument, what is there to respond to?

An argument is an opinion.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You didn't make an argument, what is there to respond to?

I did make an argument. I made the argument that I think it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because you are offended by what someone said. This just seems to me you don't have a counter argument.

Where is the argument? You literally just stated an opinion. Stating your opinion is not an argument.

[Andsed]

I did make an argument. I made the argument that I think it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because you are offended by what someone said. This just seems to me you don't have a counter argument.

Where is the argument? You literally just stated an opinion. Stating your opinion is not an argument.

it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because you are offended by what someone said

There is the argument. Now do you want to have a debate or simply go "la la la your wrong not listening la la la"

[United Muscovite Nations]

Where is the argument? You literally just stated an opinion. Stating your opinion is not an argument.

it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because you are offended by what someone said

There is the argument. Now do you want to have a debate or simply go "la la la your wrong not listening la la la"

That's not an argument, it's a statement of opinion worded to look like a fact. An argument requires reasoning, stating something is not an argument.

[The South Falls]

By making political violence a matter of legal consequence, it prevents more political violence. The state (the legal representative of society) having the sole legal right to political violence.

Or it simply acts as the mouthpiece for political violence of the ruling elites thus creating a situation in which the only remedy to oppression is removal of said elites instead of allowing organic societal change.

Which feeds itself through revolt and political violence, resulting in the wish of those in the future to curb it, which leads to the same.

[Handecanistan]

I did make an argument. I made the argument that I think it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because you are offended by what someone said. This just seems to me you don't have a counter argument.

Where is the argument? You literally just stated an opinion. Stating your opinion is not an argument.

The argument is if you were insulted you shouldn't have a right to escalate to violence or imprisonment.

If you disagree then surely you have a reason for it? This is how debates work, 2 opinions clash and they are backed up or broken down. Don't worry, we can take this slow, maybe the religion is affecting your ability to debate? You shouldn't have too much of that stuff, messes with your head and gives you delirious visions and thoughts.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Where is the argument? You literally just stated an opinion. Stating your opinion is not an argument.

The argument is if you were insulted you shouldn't have a right to escalate to violence or imprisonment.

If you disagree then surely you have a reason for it? This is how debates work, 2 opinions clash and they are backed up or broken down. Don't worry, we can take this slow, maybe the religion is affecting your ability to debate? You shouldn't have too much of that stuff, messes with your head and gives you delirious visions and thoughts.

That's not an argument, that's literally just stating an opinion, they haven't given any reason for me to agree with what they said at all.

I could just as easily say that it's right to defend your beliefs passionately, and I would have done just as much as they have.

[Andsed]

There is the argument. Now do you want to have a debate or simply go "la la la your wrong not listening la la la"

That's not an argument, it's a statement of opinion worded to look like a fact. An argument requires reasoning, stating something is not an argument.

Okay it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because someone said something you found offensive because violence and jail time does much more harm than saying something offensives and thus your harming them more than they harmed you. Willing to debate now?

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not an argument, it's a statement of opinion worded to look like a fact. An argument requires reasoning, stating something is not an argument.

Okay it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because someone said something you found offensive because violence and jail time does much more harm than saying something offensives and thus your harming them more than they harmed you. Willing to debate now?

Yes.

The harm that intentionally offensive speech can cause in society gives reason to not allow it. The logical conclusion of your argument is that Nazi literature and rallies should be help openly, regardless of the possible repercussions.

[Handecanistan]

The argument is if you were insulted you shouldn't have a right to escalate to violence or imprisonment.

If you disagree then surely you have a reason for it? This is how debates work, 2 opinions clash and they are backed up or broken down. Don't worry, we can take this slow, maybe the religion is affecting your ability to debate? You shouldn't have too much of that stuff, messes with your head and gives you delirious visions and thoughts.

That's not an argument, that's literally just stating an opinion, they haven't given any reason for me to agree with what they said at all.

I could just as easily say that it's right to defend your beliefs passionately, and I would have done just as much as they have.

Ah, very good, an actual counterpoint. We're actually getting somewhere. So if someone has the right to defend their opinions by any means necessary, does that not mean that they can resort to insults, which would then allow the other person to feel insulted and imprison you? It feels like it just allows one person to say "no u " to the handcuffs because they are offended and insulted by the idea of prison.

Essentially, by giving one the right to defend their opinion with violence and prison,you are also advocating the other to use exactly the same method. Whereas if you have no right to resort to violence or imprisonment, you would have to defend your opinion with actual logic. Surely the logic option works best, because it allows the problem to be discussed and resolved, as opposed to the stronger one getting their way without any form of intelligence being used?

[Ifreann]

Yes, it should be Malaysians securing their right to chat shit about Allah, with foreign assistance if necessary, not foreign militaries doing a blatant oil-grab "regime change" in the name of free speech.

Thank God Trump is in power because he knows better than this.

Trump famously opposed to regime change, yes. Pay no attention to Venezuela.

[Handecanistan]

Okay it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because someone said something you found offensive because violence and jail time does much more harm than saying something offensives and thus your harming them more than they harmed you. Willing to debate now?

Yes.

The harm that intentionally offensive speech can cause in society gives reason to not allow it. The logical conclusion of your argument is that Nazi literature and rallies should be help openly, regardless of the possible repercussions.

And your logic allows the Nazis to maintain their power by giving the government justification to take someone out for "re-education". Which gives more damage, a rally/protest, or the government "re-educating" people?

[Diarcesia]

Thank God Trump is in power because he knows better than this.

Trump famously opposed to regime change, yes. Pay no attention to Venezuela.

Or did he/they?

Back to topic, this is regrettable. This is more of a cultural than religious phenomenon.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Yes.

The harm that intentionally offensive speech can cause in society gives reason to not allow it. The logical conclusion of your argument is that Nazi literature and rallies should be help openly, regardless of the possible repercussions.

And your logic allows the Nazis to maintain their power by giving the government justification to take someone out for "re-education". Which gives more damage, a rally/protest, or the government "re-educating" people?

If a totalitarian regime has already taken power, then speech won't bring them out of power.

[MC United]

Any religion that presumes to enforce "blasphemy" laws should be flat-out abolished. Still more so with totalitarian political ideologies that masquerade as "religions".

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's not an argument, that's literally just stating an opinion, they haven't given any reason for me to agree with what they said at all.

I could just as easily say that it's right to defend your beliefs passionately, and I would have done just as much as they have.

Ah, very good, an actual counterpoint. We're actually getting somewhere. So if someone has the right to defend their opinions by any means necessary, does that not mean that they can resort to insults, which would then allow the other person to feel insulted and imprison you? It feels like it just allows one person to say "no u " to the handcuffs because they are offended and insulted by the idea of prison.

Essentially, by giving one the right to defend their opinion with violence and prison,you are also advocating the other to use exactly the same method. Whereas if you have no right to resort to violence or imprisonment, you would have to defend your opinion with actual logic. Surely the logic option works best, because it allows the problem to be discussed and resolved, as opposed to the stronger one getting their way without any form of intelligence being used?

No fruitful discussion has ever come about from someone insulting the other.

[The South Falls]

Okay it is wrong to escalate things to violence and jail time because someone said something you found offensive because violence and jail time does much more harm than saying something offensives and thus your harming them more than they harmed you. Willing to debate now?

Yes.

The harm that intentionally offensive speech can cause in society gives reason to not allow it. The logical conclusion of your argument is that Nazi literature and rallies should be help openly, regardless of the possible repercussions.

Making judgments on offensive speech veers into this, where you can arbitrarily say that anything is offensive speech.

[The South Falls]

Any religion that presumes to enforce "blasphemy" laws should be flat-out abolished. Still more so with totalitarian political ideologies that masquerade as "religions".

Are you suggesting that Islam is the latter?

[Handecanistan]

Ah, very good, an actual counterpoint. We're actually getting somewhere. So if someone has the right to defend their opinions by any means necessary, does that not mean that they can resort to insults, which would then allow the other person to feel insulted and imprison you? It feels like it just allows one person to say "no u " to the handcuffs because they are offended and insulted by the idea of prison.

Essentially, by giving one the right to defend their opinion with violence and prison,you are also advocating the other to use exactly the same method. Whereas if you have no right to resort to violence or imprisonment, you would have to defend your opinion with actual logic. Surely the logic option works best, because it allows the problem to be discussed and resolved, as opposed to the stronger one getting their way without any form of intelligence being used?

No fruitful discussion has ever come about from someone insulting the other.

Ok so someone says an insult right? Most people would either ignore him or insult back. What if you ask him why he thinks that? Learn his perspective and reasonings? Attempt to persuade him your side, allowing him to come away from potentially extremist views. Congrats, you just solved the problem, gained an ally and probably a friend.

Or we could go your way, beat the shit out of him, allowing the other party to then have the right to hit back and lead to escalation. Or just straight up imprison him. Yeah, such fruitful discussion and problem solving. Not hiding or oppressing an issue at all.

[Bienenhalde]

Yes and if I lashed out physically or had you jailed I would be in the wrong. Getting offended at something is not a good reason to jail someone.

This is not merely a matter of people being offended; it is a matter of maintaining social stability. The good of society as a whole outweighs the the selfish whims of the individual.