Turn on thread page Beta

Would you support laws against people denouncing Islam? watch

  • View Poll Results: Answer however many you like
    I would support laws that criminalise criticism of Islam
    10
    5.21%
    I would support laws that criminalise vilification of Islam
    17
    8.85%
    I would support laws that criminalises any negative speech against Muslims
    16
    8.33%
    I would not support any of the above.
    162
    84.38%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Politicians who we elect democratically.
    You mean the institution that doesn't follow the laws that they are supposed to follow have the right to dictate what laws other people have to follow...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    You mean the institution that doesn't follow the laws that they are supposed to follow have the right to dictate what laws other people have to follow...
    What is your alternative suggestion? Anarchy? Shariah?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saint-Saens)
    These laws have come about following thousands of years of philosophising and debate. They are not arbitrary
    Do you allow dogmatic principles from ancient times to dictate modern civilization?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Do you allow dogmatic principles from ancient times to dictate modern civilization?
    Do you allow dogmatic principles from ancient times dictate Islamic barbarity?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Do you allow dogmatic principles from ancient times to dictate modern civilization?
    Sigh... your low intellect is showing... most principles we have originate from ancient times...

    Answer the question. What is your alternative?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    You mean the institution that doesn't follow the laws that they are supposed to follow have the right to dictate what laws other people have to follow...
    We give them the right to be in that institution and we give them those rights. True, there are some issues here and then, but I'd take a democratically elected parliament over a fundamentalist dictatorship any day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Whoever suggested that this should be a thing is a disgrace to humanity. Allowing people to criticise this offensive religion is part of our right to free speech. I am disgusted by Islam so I am pleased that I can at least criticise it freely (for now, at least.) I am constantly being labelled as offensive and "Islamophobic" but I don't care one bit.

    The right to free speech does not give you the right not to be offended.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saint-Saens)
    Sigh... your low intellect is showing... most principles we have originate from ancient times...

    Answer the question. What is your alternative?
    So why do you continue to follow them? Surely we, as a modern, liberated, enlightened and advanced civilization, should have a better system rather than relying on methods devised thousands of years ago?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    So why do you continue to follow them? Surely we, as a modern, liberated, enlightened and advanced civilization, should have a better system rather than relying on methods devised thousands of years ago?
    False comparison. These laws and principles have been rewritten, refined, corrected, detailed and gone through trial and error over thousands of years. They are not the same as following some scribblings in a book from a desert written by a desert dweller high on opium.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    So why do you continue to follow them? Surely we, as a modern, liberated, enlightened and advanced civilization, should have a better system rather than relying on methods devised thousands of years ago?
    What a silly question! Are you going to come up with an invention better suited to moving heavy loads in mass transport than the wheel? After all, it was invented in ancient times.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    What a silly question! Are you going to come up with an invention better suited to moving heavy loads in mass transport than the wheel? After all, it was invented in ancient times.
    I propose a triangle wheel shaped after the Illuminati sign. Will make for some great laughs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Do you allow dogmatic principles from ancient times dictate Islamic barbarity?
    Perceived whataboutery does not nullify nor negate the argument proposed, namely that you seem content in allowing adhering to dogma, philosophized from ancient times.

    Yet, you personally, reject the notion that others, who may not be of the same creed as yourself, should be free to adhere to a set of principles dictated not 1500 years past.

    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    False comparison. These laws and principles have been rewritten, refined, corrected, detailed and gone through trial and error over thousands of years. They are not the same as following some scribblings in a book from a desert written by a desert dweller high on opium.
    So they have been found to be constantly wrong, thus needing revisions and amendments?

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    What a silly question! Are you going to come up with an invention better suited to moving heavy loads in mass transport than the wheel? After all, it was invented in ancient times.
    Again, an attempted deflection is not an argument.

    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    We give them the right to be in that institution and we give them those rights. True, there are some issues here and then, but I'd take a democratically elected parliament over a fundamentalist dictatorship any day.
    That can only be possible if they give the rights to us, in the first place.

    I suppose what you are trying to say is that a democracy is akin to a "benevolent dictatorship"....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)

    That can only be possible if they give the rights to us, in the first place.

    I suppose what you are trying to say is that a democracy is akin to a "benevolent dictatorship"....
    Ooh, another false comparison. Quite the tally you have there.

    Who is "they"? Politicians are members of society from households. They are not some separate ruling class like a monarchy or a dictatorship. They are people from society that we elect to represent our interests and trust them to pass laws for their interest.

    If lots of people are unhappy with laws and politicians, they will vote for someone else or form political parties of their own. People were unhappy with Labour and Lib Dems running things. Lib Dems got wiped out and Labour is struggling to hang on. Scotland got SNP into power.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    So why do you continue to follow them? Surely we, as a modern, liberated, enlightened and advanced civilization, should have a better system rather than relying on methods devised thousands of years ago?
    There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking at methods/systems/ideology devised thousands or hundreds of years ago, looking at them objectively to see if they're moral and make sense, and implementing them if they do. That's exactly what we're doing and have been doing as a society.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)

    So they have been found to be constantly wrong, thus needing revisions and amendments?
    Constantly wrong? No. Constantly getting better more like.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Ooh, another false comparison. Quite the tally you have there.

    Who is "they"? Politicians are members of society from households. They are not some separate ruling class like a monarchy or a dictatorship. They are people from society that we elect to represent our interests and trust them to pass laws for their interest.
    More people vote against them, then for them.

    In fact, they only secured just over a third of votes and only have the support of 16% of the country.

    Yet, that 16% dictate laws to the 84%.

    If lots of people are unhappy with laws and politicians, they will vote for someone else or form political parties of their own. People were unhappy with Labour and Lib Dems running things. Lib Dems got wiped out and Labour is struggling to hang on. Scotland got SNP into power.
    In a "democracy", you can't make change on your own because your laws are dictating what others can and cannot do.

    It's a blanket system, not a tailored system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fango_Jett)
    Constantly wrong? No. Constantly getting better more like.
    Why would you change a system if it works well?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Nope. We're not in the 1300s, criticising religion is an integral part of our advancement.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Errm42)
    Why would you change a system if it works well?
    I don't want "well". I want better and the best.

    This is like saying "Why should we upgrade from a carriage to a car if the carriage works fine?". Why do you take cars and buses if your legs work well?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.