• taladar@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    a better example would be throwing food down a disposal in front of a starving child.

    That is a ridiculous comparison. The copy of the book they are burning represents no real unfulfilled need for the believer like the food does for the starving child.

    • TWeaK@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not a perfect example, but I’m not sure there really is one. However it’s a much better example than burning a dictionary.

      The fact is, there are few similar symbols that a non-religious person would hold precious in the same way a religious person would theirs, so examples are not going to get this right. That doesn’t mean that a religious person’s sentiment should be disregarded entirely, not when the whole intent is to use that to cause them harm.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Society isn’t. However society should have some respect for citizens and what they hold value to.

          • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Respect is not laughing in someones face when they talk about their imaginary friend - no more.

    • malamignasanmig@group.lt
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      though i disagree with their sentiment, i sort get their example. it is not about practical need, but more of the object’s perceived value. the qran is valuable to its believer as much as food is to the starving. that was not a ridiculous comparison.

        • malamignasanmig@group.lt
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          and that is where conflict comes from. some value an imaginary god while others do not. it is idiotic to you, but not to them. again, i was not defending the idea, just the other commenter’s example.

      • taladar@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There are good reasons not to go by perceived anything when it comes to offense though. Offending people is very much not something that can be avoided for everyone simultaneously, unlike needs and desires in the real world like food, water,… which are much more predictable and much less incompatible.