arithma wrotePerhaps you would have laughed if I told it to you, but perhaps to your mom.
I would stick fast to my values and not hit you, but probably returned fire, so to speak, depending on why you were doing it. I'd probably throw some insults back at you, and if you continued, and it was a public place, probably gotten my mother and I to move away from you. It would depend heavily on your physical demeanor - if it became threatening, than I would respond appropriately.
If it was in a private establishment, I'd warn you to stop or I'd tell the owner or security, etc.
If you followed us wherever we went, it would probably be means for claiming harassment and calling the cops, as long as your harassment was just verbal.
arithma wroteAssault and harassment are subjective. That's exactly what's the issue here. What's acceptable to you and totally tolerable, is totally intolerable to someone else.
They are judged subjectively, but you are seriously bending their definition way out of line. Showing an offensive drawing to a group of people who KNEW that it would be shown (they weren't forced into that lecture theatre) is in no way assault or harassment. The cartoonist is hardly going into their homes and shoving the pictures in their faces. It's called free speech, and the Muslims in that lecture theatre knew exactly what was going to happen (which makes their actions even more disgusting).
arithma wroteI am not excusing anyone who would murder for an insult. However there are situations in which an insult, to some, is enough reason to go barbaric (in return for much greater perceived barbarism).
To those 'some', I would consider their ideology barbaric, and not having place in a civilised society, especially a place like Sweden.
arithma wroteArrogance leads people to judge people in sight of their own ideals and not any other.
No, it doesn't. Arrogance leads people to think that their ideals are correct, without analysing the ideals of others first and being open to criticism.
To judge someone with a set of ideals different to your own wouldn't make sense.
arithma wroteAn open society, totally open, should allow verbal domestic abuse, verbal sexual harassment, verbal abuse at the office.
You misunderstand the meaning of 'open' in this case. Open is simply the freedom to say what you like and do what you want, WITHOUT IMPINGING ON THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
This would include inflicting violence or verbal abuse/harassment. The law protects people from other people, pure and simple.
arithma wroteThe riot with violence is just like any other retaliation to the a system that does not fit a minority and often penalizes them for their values.
No, it isn't. Because 'retaliation' can be non-violent. It can be fought in the debating halls, in schools, in politics, in philosophy. Nothing excuses a bunch of violent nutcases running around laying waste to people who reject their worldview (or religion in this case).
Free speech means that while you're free to say what you like about others, you have to suck it up and realise that this applies to other people too. You can't have it one way.
