EPTIreland back to the middle ages. - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
deconduo
Ireland4122 Posts
| ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
MrMoose
Canada176 Posts
| ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On July 17 2009 10:40 MrMoose wrote: I'm just glad a law like this didn't pass somewhere where it would actually be taken seriously...say the southern US - I could see it now "evolut-" "BLASPHEMY!" /25k fine :S Something like this just wouldn't hold up for a day in America. There would be riots... And I would join in :D | ||
|
KinosJourney2
Sweden1811 Posts
On July 17 2009 02:04 Nightmarjoo wrote: They weren't making enough off of speeding tickets, hard economic times, can't blame them imo. Just what i thought, lol.  | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago. | ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On one side, L could have a very viable point. This law could very well lower the very high tensions between the religious groups. On the other hand, THIS IS BLASPHEMOUS! | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
| ||
|
wurm
Philippines2296 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9104 Posts
On July 17 2009 03:38 BlackJack wrote: I didn't mean U.S. I'm sure most people here are well aware of the westboro baptist church Ah alright, I wasn't sure if people around the U.S. would know of him or whether I just did because he is based in Kansas. The same state whose board of education tried to make it mandatory to teach Creationism alongside evolution in science class! | ||
|
ghermination
United States2851 Posts
| ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
in an age where so much information is so readily acceptable people are getting more ignorant with each passing year. sometimes a eugenics program doesn't sound like such a bad idea... | ||
|
Etherone
United States1898 Posts
On July 17 2009 11:08 L wrote: The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final. This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago. the law is extremely subjective and will be exploited. It is ridiculous to think that a system that would have to resort to such a law would have the discipline to use it only when it is optimal. | ||
|
Uraeus
France1378 Posts
On July 17 2009 06:20 koreasilver wrote: I love how more than half of people's response to Moltke's posts are "you're pompous", "you're pretentious", and "stop using big words". Those aren't valid arguments at all. I mean, I disagree with the guy a lot, but if you have a problem with the guy then at least respond to his arguments, not his style of writing. On July 17 2009 06:03 Foucault wrote: + Show Spoiler [ Off Topic answer] +Sir, you're retarded and should read up on Moltkes post history, because chances are this guy is way more intelligent than you. I don't have a "problem" with his ideas, just his style. Why do more than half of TL call him pompous ? Because he IS! As a matter of fact, I have read quite a lot of Moltke's posts. Because his posts have "big words", this makes him intelligent? No way... I am not saying he is stupid (I don't think he is actually). But if you read his posts carefully, most of the time, they could be drastically reduced and simplified without loosing their significance. Now, is it bad to write nice posts with rich vocabulary, etc...? No! Thing is, HIS posts are written more to show off than to convince (which is a way of convincing anyway. Read Schopenhauer about that. See? I can quote philosophers too? Am I not clever?), and this is immature and annoying. There was a post on TL about degrees and Academic achievements. Many on TL have incredible résumés. Do they brag about it on the forums or write pompously? NO! Does Tasteless, a guy who majored in philosophy, comes up with jokes about Plato and Descartes? NO, he cracks nerdy jokes! TL forums are here for fun, not as a place to write academic essays. Now if Moltke wrote a TLFE, I am pretty sure it would be great because this guy obviously has incredible writing skills. He should just put them to a better use. Actually this law is just reflecting the resurging fundamentalism in just about every religion. Earlier this year, an atheist group bought adverts on buses in Britrain, and had the message "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." printed. Of course it was provocative, but nevertheless, quite a lot complaints were filed in order to have the ads removed. Last time India's Prime Minister came to France, he asked to have our law modified so the Sikhs could drive a motorcycle without a helmet but with their turban instead. This way, WE would respect THEIR religion. In France again, several problems have been reported of Muslim parents refusing their daughter to wear sport outfits for Physical Education classes, because it implied not wearing a veil. A couple of years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Sikh (again!) students were allowed to wear a ceremonial dagger (yes, a dagger, as in a huge sharp knife) AT SCHOOL for religious reasons. There is a general trend of random people and religious leaders asking the whole society to adapt to their own religion, and more and more countries are leaning towards this. This is a wrong way to address the problem of religion imo. I am a strong supporter of France's secularism (we are one of the few Western countries with NO official religion), as it forces every single citizen to have common references. As soon as you start differentiating people according to their religions, this creates tensions between communities and favors fundamentalism in the end. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On July 17 2009 16:19 Etherone wrote: the law is extremely subjective and will be exploited. It is ridiculous to think that a system that would have to resort to such a law would have the discipline to use it only when it is optimal. The law being extremely subjective is the NORM for laws. Judges fill in the details and provide the machinery to get more certainty from decisions, even in civil law countries. If this law is 'abused' it will be because judges abuse it and don't throw out stupid claims. Judges will have to develop tests to determine what constitutes blasphemy, what contexts are viable, etc. Nearly your entire criminal code is built in similar language, but the history and usage of the laws have led to calcification of the meanings, tests, traditions, and institutions used to judge people, which has given the process legitimacy. The same will happen with this law if judges do their job. Edit: I suggest you look up the charter and our constitution to see how vague they are. There are sections which are interpreted nearly 100% in the opposite manners that the original drafters envisaged, and the vaguest areas are the areas in which there is the most judicial scrutiny, because they're also the most useful. | ||
|
GhostKorean
United States2330 Posts
| ||
Arbiter[frolix]
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On July 17 2009 11:08 L wrote: The obvious purpose of the law is to lower protestant and catholic tensions in Ireland by providing deterrence and legitimizing actions against said 'blasphemer' as legal and final. This law isn't 'crazy' or 'medieval'. It is likely to only be used against someone overtly trying to stir up the same bullshit that was tearing Ireland apart only a few years ago. The law was passed in the Republic of Ireland. I doubt that it was intended to, could or would be used as a deterrent or weapon against people stirring up trouble in Northern Ireland. | ||
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
On July 16 2009 23:39 Diomedes wrote: It won't stand in the EU court. Only problem is the time and money it takes to get your right. How doesn't this stand in a EU court? It'll stand just fine. It's comming right out as being a criminal charge as per the Ozturk criteria and countries are free to create their own laws. There's no way this is going to be an infringement on freedom of speech as people are still free to express their criticism on faith or that they are nonbelievers and don't believe in god. Read the bill, you just can't go insulting god and the faith. It's all fine as long as its mannered. Goddammit is gonna get you fined though :D. Eat that paddys. | ||
|
Nyovne
Netherlands19135 Posts
On July 17 2009 16:19 Etherone wrote: the law is extremely subjective and will be exploited. It is ridiculous to think that a system that would have to resort to such a law would have the discipline to use it only when it is optimal. lol, all law is ultra subjective and open to exploit. Continental law quite a bit less due to elaborate codification systems but Common law is just one big subjective interpretation on law setting precedents by a select few. | ||
|
ChainLightning
Canada21 Posts
You hear gasps in Canada when our prime minister pocketed a eucharistic cracker (yes, I said it, cracker: or wafer if you prefer). I think certain people have trouble differentiating what constitutes as a physical person and what doesn't. Sure you think the eucharist is the Jesus' body and it's your right to hold that view... just realize that there are others that don't see it that way and in reality, it really is just a bland piece of cardboard (after all, transubstantiation is just a long word that explains nothing really). There's nothing to be worked up about except that if we start putting religion on the pedastel and giving it a high and mighty status, the Church will NOT be accountable for their ignorant ways. | ||
| ||
