interesting trolling 
DDD this will give me strength to continue pirating, thank you, swedish pirates!
DDD this will give me strength to continue pirating, thank you, swedish pirates!
Sweden: Piracy Is Not A Religion
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
You posted misguided and false information in an attempt to debunk all religion without realizing that the only scenarios this occurs in are either third world countries or horribly oppressive governments such as Iran's. Becoming a religion only grants you charity status i.e. you are not taxed by the government (in the U.S. at least, not sure how Europe handles this.) So no, you cannot stone a dog to death or rape a woman because a religion permits you. That's just as ignorant and stupid as saying that Muslims can have sex with infants because the Koran doesn't specify a specific age that is appropriate for sex.NameIsRobertPaulson said:
This whole story speaks to the problem of religious privilege. In a sense, these guys (and that bloke in Austria who managed to get a colander on his head due to his pastafarianism (incidentally, he had to have a psych. test to ensure that he was safe driving; why don't they require that for someone with a yarmulke or a burka?)) have exactly the right idea. The piracy church is a pretty obvious attempt to make their piracy legal -- not legal in general, but legal for them. It speaks to the fact that evidently in Sweden (and certainly in the U.S.) you can get away with shit simply because you are religious. What these guys are doing, is trying to exploit that, and in some ways I hope they succeed. If they succeed, it might put a spotlight on exactly why religious privilege is a bad thing. I'll have to refer to another case to make my point a little more clearly.
Fucking tea. [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/analysis.aspx?id=16524]
For folks who don't feel like reading that, it basically chronicles a case in which a small Brazilian religion earned the right to drink hallucinogenic tea in its rites. No big deal, right?
Wrong.
They were granted the right to consume a controlled substance; this suggests that there are harmful effects from drinking the tea. If that's the case, though, then one of two things should happen: either the religious group should be disallowed from drinking the allegedly harmful substance, or the controls on the substance should be re-evaluated. If it's safe enough to drink and get high for God, then it should be safe enough to drink and get high for shits and giggles.
It's the same deal with this Kopimist group. I don't think they're trolling at all. I think they're trying to exploit obvious religious privilege, and while I know I said a part of me hoped they'd succeed, I'm honestly damned glad the Swedish government wouldn't give them an inch.
Fucking tea. [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.com/analysis.aspx?id=16524]
For folks who don't feel like reading that, it basically chronicles a case in which a small Brazilian religion earned the right to drink hallucinogenic tea in its rites. No big deal, right?
Wrong.
They were granted the right to consume a controlled substance; this suggests that there are harmful effects from drinking the tea. If that's the case, though, then one of two things should happen: either the religious group should be disallowed from drinking the allegedly harmful substance, or the controls on the substance should be re-evaluated. If it's safe enough to drink and get high for God, then it should be safe enough to drink and get high for shits and giggles.
It's the same deal with this Kopimist group. I don't think they're trolling at all. I think they're trying to exploit obvious religious privilege, and while I know I said a part of me hoped they'd succeed, I'm honestly damned glad the Swedish government wouldn't give them an inch.
EDIT: To make it sound like less of an attack on a person, and more like an attack on a person's ignorance.dashiz94 said:
Ever [http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5861268.html]
read [http://extras.denverpost.com/news/news0208f.htm]
the [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6561617/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/mother-confesses-severingbabys-arms/]
news? [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/26/national/main1837248.shtml]
How about this: Can you form a cult and seek religious asylum for statutory rape? [http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0727/Warren-Jeffs-Utah-court-overturns-polygamist-s-rape-conviction]
Can you form another different cult, and face ZERO LEGAL PENALTIES when your congregates follow your advice, sell all their belongings, and ruin their lives (and more importantly, the lives of their children), advertising to the world that the rapture is coming? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Camping] For chrissake, this wasn't even two months ago.
That information was not false. It was not misguided. It was exactly representative of the problem that this pirate-cult is trying to exploit, and that kind of garbage certainly does happen in the first world, daily.
That's cool. I could say the same thing about certain parts of Africa, where you'll be hard pressed to find anyone who is against femaleNathLines said:
I'm not sure whether these guys are for real or not - but can't a person value this just as highly as a god?
Either way, I think this is interesting. It will either set the standard for what a religion is, or open up the floodgates.
Either way, I think this is interesting. It will either set the standard for what a religion is, or open up the floodgates.
And either one of those outcomes would be nice.
There's a difference, though. Sure, people can value theft as highly as they value a God, but belief and action are not the same thing. I believe that I should be surrounded by naked cheerleaders all the time. I do not go out and leash up a bunch of naked cheerleaders to store in my basement. Freedom of belief is important. Freedom of speech is important. The freedom to act must be restricted, because it has real effects on real people. Just because you have conviction, doesn't mean you get to trample the law.
There's a difference, though. Sure, people can value theft as highly as they value a God, but belief and action are not the same thing. I believe that I should be surrounded by naked cheerleaders all the time. I do not go out and leash up a bunch of naked cheerleaders to store in my basement. Freedom of belief is important. Freedom of speech is important. The freedom to act must be restricted, because it has real effects on real people. Just because you have conviction, doesn't mean you get to trample the law.
no more fantastical then any other religion in the world and in some ways better because it promotes the opposite of the major religions (freedom and knowledge) so i have no problem with them
This is just stupid, making a religion around downloading would be impossible in Sweden because of the copyright law because that church wouldn't be able to go around because as we all know downloaders do what the do because they don't want to pay for what they want and in Swedish copyright law you have to give credit to the person that actually owns it if you use their material in public and you can get more fucking public than in a church, if you don't he'll sew your ass and can claim all the royalty you earned using his material plus a ticket depending on which instance the prosecution will be in and let's not even go in on how fucked up the swedish law system is....
You just proved my point. You give me a few articles about people's idiocy and then say that all religion is like this? And you're calling me the ignorant one?Bento Box said:
This kind of argument logic is EXACTLY the same as the belief that all Muslims are terrorists because six guys hopped in a plane and crashed into the Twin Towers.
IT'S DUMB. And to reiterate my previous point, becoming a religion does not grant people the right to break the law. Ever. At all.
What you cited were cases of people being fucking stupid because they lacked common sense, not because their religion justified it or anything like that.
The big problem with this brand of people is that they lack realistic ideas.
Sure information should be free of charge for any human.
But then again, authors and designers have to eat something, if we want to have pretty pictures in the future. Now, I am not there to say that juggernauts, like Sony and Universal are going broke because of piracy, because the obviously aren't, but think about the individuals:
How can one be a writer without copyright? How can one be a scienticst or an inventor without patent law? How can it be desireable to be that?
These are the questions these people fail to answer, which is what keeps them from being respected.
Every rugged redneck can tell you what is wrong with the world. A political revolutioneer can tell you how to do it better.
Sure information should be free of charge for any human.
But then again, authors and designers have to eat something, if we want to have pretty pictures in the future. Now, I am not there to say that juggernauts, like Sony and Universal are going broke because of piracy, because the obviously aren't, but think about the individuals:
How can one be a writer without copyright? How can one be a scienticst or an inventor without patent law? How can it be desireable to be that?
These are the questions these people fail to answer, which is what keeps them from being respected.
Every rugged redneck can tell you what is wrong with the world. A political revolutioneer can tell you how to do it better.
