Sweden finally goes Conservative

[DanishDynamite]

Sweden held general elections today (Sunday). According to the exit polls they will finally get a Conservative government. For those not in the know, Sweden has been ruled by the Socialist governments for most of the past 50 years, at least. Most recently, they were under the whip of a SocialDemocrat government for at least 12 years. It seems they finally managed to throw off this oppression and will now have a Conservative government.

Well done, Swedes!

[CFLarsen]

Sweden held general elections today (Sunday). According to the exit polls they will finally get a Conservative government. For those not in the know, Sweden has been ruled by the Socialist governments for most of the past 50 years, at least. Most recently, they were under the whip of a SocialDemocrat government for at least 12 years. It seems they finally managed to throw off this oppression and will now have a Conservative government.

Well done, Swedes!

And, in that time, created one of the world's best societies...

[DJW]

I would really appreciate it if you would describe what constitutes a Danish conservative in geopolitical terms.

Oh, and I'm happy you're happy.:)

[The_Fire]

So where these the guys whom hacked the oppersitions computers or was that someone else?

[DanishDynamite]

And, in that time, created one of the world's best societies...
And during that time, despite their efforts, were unable to keep a good society from emerging.

[DanishDynamite]

I would really appreciate it if you would describe what constitutes a Danish conservative in geopolitical terms.

Oh, and I'm happy you're happy.:)
In geopolitical terms a Danish Conservative government would be a Ross Perot government, i.e. in the middle of American politics.

[DanishDynamite]

So where these the guys whom hacked the oppersitions computers or was that someone else?
Yes, my understanding is that the Moderates (who were scandalized due to the hacking incident) grew enormously at the polls.

[CFLarsen]

And during that time, despite their efforts, were unable to keep a good society from emerging.

Judging from what people voted for over the years, it looks very much like they preferred a great society to a good one.

I'm curious about this "under the whip" comment, as well as the "oppression" ditto.

Are you saying that the elections weren't fair? Or that the Swedish people didn't know what they were doing?

[Dave1001]

Sweden held general elections today (Sunday). According to the exit polls they will finally get a Conservative government. For those not in the know, Sweden has been ruled by the Socialist governments for most of the past 50 years, at least. Most recently, they were under the whip of a SocialDemocrat government for at least 12 years. It seems they finally managed to throw off this oppression and will now have a Conservative government.

Well done, Swedes!

What does this mean tangibly in terms of policy differences?

[DanishDynamite]

Judging from what people voted for over the years, it looks very much like they preferred a great society to a good one.
In what sense?
I'm curious about this "under the whip" comment, as well as the "oppression" ditto.

Are you saying that the elections weren't fair? Or that the Swedish people didn't know what they were doing?
The last bit, obviously. Better late than never. :)

[DanishDynamite]

What does this mean tangibly in terms of policy differences?
Hopefully it means the same as a shift from Republican to Democrat controlled government means in the US.

Strike that. Hopefully it means more than that. :)

[CFLarsen]

In what sense?

Oh, creating a welfare society, basically on par with the Danish and Norwegian. Surely, you acknowledge that these three countries are some of the best societies in the world to live in?

The last bit, obviously. Better late than never. :)

Isn't that like saying that democracy isn't working, unless people vote for the political party you like?

[DanishDynamite]

Oh, creating a welfare society, basically on par with the Danish and Norwegian. Surely, you acknowledge that these three countries are some of the best societies in the world to live in?
Yes, I acknowledge that. My point is that Sweden managed this feat despite the negative effects that the socialdemocrat government had.
Isn't that like saying that democracy isn't working, unless people vote for the political party you like?
Of course not. Many democracies don't work, no matter who the people vote for. Would you like examples?

[CFLarsen]

Yes, I acknowledge that. My point is that Sweden managed this feat despite the negative effects that the socialdemocrat government had.

How did they do that? Government has no or little effect on how societies develop?

Of course not. Many democracies don't work, no matter who the people vote for. Would you like examples?

I can look at the democracies dominated by conservative governments. ;) But, if you feel like it...

[DanishDynamite]

How did they do that? Government has no or little effect on how societies develop?
To the first question: Natural resources. To the second question: It's a miracle!
I can look at the democracies dominated by conservative governments. ;) But, if you feel like it...Not sure what you are asking here. Do you want the list or not?

[Chaos]

*snip* To the second question: It's a miracle!
*snip*

I don´t think that particular word flies well here. You´re going to have to elaborate a bit.

[DanishDynamite]

I don´t think that particular word flies well here. You´re going to have to elaborate a bit.
For a sufficiently advanced society, a government which does little direct harm, is survivable.

[CFLarsen]

To the first question: Natural resources.

But Denmark hasn't the same natural resources that Sweden (or Norway) has.

To the second question: It's a miracle!

Yes, that is how Conservatives like to explain things. Doesn't cut it here - you know that.

Not sure what you are asking here. Do you want the list or not?

Knock yourself out.

[DanishDynamite]

But Denmark hasn't the same natural resources that Sweden (or Norway) has.
Nope it hasn't. It also hasn't had SocialDemocrats in charge for as long as the poor Sweden has.
Yes, that is how Conservatives like to explain things. Doesn't cut it here - you know that.
See my answer to Chaos.
Knock yourself out.Thanks! :)

At the moment my link doesn't seem to work, though. A temporary clitch, I'm sure.

[American]

Sweden has been ruled by the Socialist governments for most of the past 50 years, at least.

Goodbye, national socialists!

[DanishDynamite]

Goodbye, national socialists!
Nope. Just goodbye socialists!

[Cheesejoff]

Hopefully it means the same as a shift from Republican to Democrat controlled government means in the US.

Strike that. Hopefully it means more than that. :)

Considering both of those parties are both right-wing, that would mean there is very little change...

[Dave1001]

What does this mean tangibly in terms of policy differences?

Still curious.

[CFLarsen]

Nope it hasn't. It also hasn't had SocialDemocrats in charge for as long as the poor Sweden has.

Yet, Denmark is not all that different from Sweden, is it?

See my answer to Chaos.
Thanks! :)

For a sufficiently advanced society, a government which does little direct harm, is survivable.

So, SocialDemocratic governments do little harm?

At the moment my link doesn't seem to work, though. A temporary clitch, I'm sure.

Of course.

[DanishDynamite]

Yet, Denmark is not all that different from Sweden, is it?
Of course it is.
So, SocialDemocratic governments do little harm?
For the Swedish version, that's about the best thing which can be said about them.
Of course.
Glad you understand.

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, creating a welfare society, basically on par with the Danish and Norwegian. Surely, you acknowledge that these three countries are some of the best societies in the world to live in?

You might call them "hotbeds of enlightenment", even.

Oh, scratch Denmark off the list though. It has a blasphemy law!

[DanishDynamite]

Still curious.
Right wing governments tend to focus on how we enlarge the cake. Left wing governments tend to focus of how we distribute the cake.

[CFLarsen]

Of course it is.

In what ways, compared to other countries?

For the Swedish version, that's about the best thing which can be said about them.

Now you are contradicting yourself.

You start with claiming that Sweden has been "under the whip" and under "oppression" from the Social Democrats for way too long.

But, you also say that the Social Democrats have not been able to influence the Swedish society all that much.

Which is it?

Glad you understand.

Any news yet?

Right wing governments tend to focus on how we enlarge the cake. Left wing governments tend to focus of how we distribute the cake.

Evidence?

You might call them "hotbeds of enlightenment", even.

Oh, scratch Denmark off the list though. It has a blasphemy law!

Unenforceable, as you well know.

Do you want to discuss Richard Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil", when you saw it on US television?

[TragicMonkey]

Unenforceable, as you well know.

Yet it exists, which is offense enough against enlightenment and rationality.

Do you want to discuss Richard Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil", when you saw it on US television?

Your attempts to read minds fails yet again. I was watching a "Three's Company" marathon. That Mrs Roper is a trip.

[DanishDynamite]

In what ways, compared to other countries?
It isn't Denmark.
Now you are contradicting yourself.

You start with claiming that Sweden has been "under the whip" and under "oppression" from the Social Democrats for way too long.

But, you also say that the Social Democrats have not been able to influence the Swedish society all that much.

Which is it?
Both. As I said before, despite their attempts, the SocialDemocrats have been unable to hinder the Swedish society from reaching the level they have.
Any news yet?
Yes. There is still no news from the western front.
Evidence?
Life.

[Elizabeth I]

Doesn't Sweden have something like a 70% tax rate? If so, sorry, I'd rather keep my money and waste it myself on things I want to waste it on than give it to some government to waste it on things I'm not the least bit interested in.

[DanishDynamite]

Doesn't Sweden have something like a 70% tax rate? If so, sorry, I'd rather keep my money and waste it myself on things I want to waste it on than give it to some government to waste it on things I'm not the least bit interested in.
Closer to 50%, but I get your point. Incidentally, Denmark has a similar tax rate.

[Ryokan]

Closer to 50%, but I get your point. Incidentally, Denmark has a similar tax rate.

As does Norway.

Hopefully we'll be the next Scandinavian country with a non-socialist goverment :)

Just three more years until the next election! :p

[DanishDynamite]

As does Norway.

Hopefully we'll be the next Scandinavian country with a non-socialist goverment :)

Just three more years until the next election! :p
I'll be cheering for you! :)

[PogoPedant]

I would be cheering for a non-socialist government in Norway, if only those liberals (yeah, that's the people believing in a liberal market, free from government intrusion) showed a hint of competence. Last time we had a liberal government they came close to destroying our tertiary education system.

[CFLarsen]

It isn't Denmark.

Neither is Burkina Faso. How is Denmark and Sweden different?

Both. As I said before, despite their attempts, the SocialDemocrats have been unable to hinder the Swedish society from reaching the level they have.

You can't have it both ways, DD.

Yes. There is still no news from the western front.

How about now?

Life.

How is that evidence? Please clarify.

[CFLarsen]

Your attempts to read minds fails yet again. I was watching a "Three's Company" marathon. That Mrs Roper is a trip.

Have you been able to watch "The Root of All Evil" on American TV?

[Mosquito]

You might call them "hotbeds of enlightenment", even.

Oh, scratch Denmark off the list though. It has a blasphemy law!

I think Norway also has such a law. Not the most used law, but there are forces that want it strengthened. Mostly forces that want to use it to jail up dissenters and critics, not seeming to understand that to the other blasphemy-law-strengtening-supporters, that would be them.

Norway also does not have free speech, though it "strives to allow it", or somesuch. In effect, the constitution says something about "free speech is a good thing, try to emulate it", or something to that effect. This is why there is illegal speech in Norway.

Mosquito - dunno much about Sweden, though, isn't that the capitol of Iceland or something?

[Cheesejoff]

As does Norway.

Hopefully we'll be the next Scandinavian country with a non-socialist goverment :)

No Scandinavian country has a socialist government.

Doesn't Sweden have something like a 70% tax rate? If so, sorry, I'd rather keep my money and waste it myself on things I want to waste it on than give it to some government to waste it on things I'm not the least bit interested in.

See the funny thing is, the government allocates it's budget to services depending on the number of people wanting to use the service. If everyone decides to take the bus instead of the train, the rail service gets a budget cut. You can still influence where your money goes by choosing not to use public services.

[TragicMonkey]

Have you been able to watch "The Root of All Evil" on American TV?

I don't know. It would depend on when it aired and on what station. I don't get all the stations, and I'm not always close to a television. I might have had my contacts out at that particular moment, which would have made me unable to watch it. Or I might have been asleep. What matters is that I didn't watch it, so I can't really discuss it with you, whether it's relevant to the conversation or just another pathetic attempt to steer into a less embarrassing direction that might distract people from Denmark's shameful, shameful blasphemy law. Blasphemy law. Blasphemy law.

[CFLarsen]

I don't know. It would depend on when it aired and on what station. I don't get all the stations, and I'm not always close to a television. I might have had my contacts out at that particular moment, which would have made me unable to watch it. Or I might have been asleep. What matters is that I didn't watch it, so I can't really discuss it with you, whether it's relevant to the conversation or just another pathetic attempt to steer into a less embarrassing direction that might distract people from Denmark's shameful, shameful blasphemy law. Blasphemy law. Blasphemy law.
Oh, it isn't a question of discussing it. It's a question of you being able to watch it.

Does any American know if it has been aired in the US?

[Kotatsu]

Sweden held general elections today (Sunday). According to the exit polls they will finally get a Conservative government.

Part of the government will be, at least nominally, liberal, though. It's unlikely that all of the ministers will be conservative. Still, the largest conservative party supposedly got more votes than the three other Alliance parties together.

For those not in the know, Sweden has been ruled by the Socialist governments for most of the past 50 years, at least. Most recently, they were under the whip of a SocialDemocrat government for at least 12 years. It seems they finally managed to throw off this oppression and will now have a Conservative government.

Which will likely last until the next election, at which time the people will have realised what a sockful of crap the conservative and liberal politics actually are. As is almost always the case, at least on the national level.

Well done, Swedes!

I voted for the guy with the longest beard!

[Kotatsu]

So where these the guys whom hacked the oppersitions computers or was that someone else?

That was the People's Party (Folkpartiet) which is supposedly liberal. They are part of the Alliance that won yesterday, but they are, I believe, the smallest part, smaller even than the Christian Democrats.

Yes, my understanding is that the Moderates (who were scandalized due to the hacking incident) grew enormously at the polls.

No, the People's Party lost about half their votes compared to the last election. I believe it is anyone's guess as to how much of that is due to the scandal (which, I believe, was very minor anyway...).

What does this mean tangibly in terms of policy differences?

Supposedly, we'll now get lowered taxes (mainly for the rich, though...), less social security, less focus on environmental issues, more jobs (but less job security for young people), and a million other things.

However, some people claim that the Social Democrats of the 1990s and 2000s have merely been copying the Right's policies (with a small delay of a few years) so it might not be very different from how it would have been, had the Social Democrats won.

It also means that we'll see the last of Göran Persson who, while competent, is something of a brute.

Goodbye, national socialists!
and:
Nope. Just goodbye socialists!

Actually (and here's a hyperbole large enough to sail an ocean liner through), considering that the People's Party will be part of the government now, the correct phrase is "Hello, National socialists!"

Right wing governments tend to focus on how we enlarge the cake. Left wing governments tend to focus of how we distribute the cake.

Except, of course, that the Swedish conservative parties are more concerned with making the people in general eating rusks. Cakes, in the conservative vision of Sweden, are for people who wear ties to work.

[plindboe]

Yes, I acknowledge that. My point is that Sweden managed this feat despite the negative effects that the socialdemocrat government had.

This sounds like fundy thinking to me. Doesn't matter what the evidence says, you will still loudly exclaim that social democracy is bad.

[TragicMonkey]

Oh, it isn't a question of discussing it. It's a question of you being able to watch it.

Does any American know if it has been aired in the US?

I'm sure it has a lot to do with Denmark's blasphemy law.

[Elizabeth I]

See the funny thing is, the government allocates it's budget to services depending on the number of people wanting to use the service. If everyone decides to take the bus instead of the train, the rail service gets a budget cut. You can still influence where your money goes by choosing not to use public services.

I don't WANT to "influence" where my money goes. It's mine. I work for it. I want to KEEP it and spend or save it myself, except for the minimal amount required to provide basic services.

[Elizabeth I]

Closer to 50%, but I get your point. Incidentally, Denmark has a similar tax rate.

I'm really sorry. :(

[Mike B.]

Hmmm...

Seems the Sweden is more innovative than Denmark.

(Sorry, but I have no idea what the numbers actually mean.)

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_inn-economy-innovation

[Mike B.]

I think it is interesting that the supposed "socialist" Scandanavian countries come out rather well in a graph of economic freedom done by the right wing Heritage Foundation:

http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/eco_eco_fre-economy-economic-freedom&nofb=1

I think it goes to the liberal reforms many of them have enacted over the last few years.

[CFLarsen]

I'm sure it has a lot to do with Denmark's blasphemy law.

If you have something new to say, take it up in another thread.

[TragicMonkey]

If you have something new to say, take it up in another thread.

I was responding to your post.

[Tony]

I don't WANT to "influence" where my money goes. It's mine. I work for it. I want to KEEP it and spend or save it myself, except for the minimal amount required to provide basic services.

What about military spending?

I'm really sorry.

Why? If Denmark has more prosperity, a smaller wealth disparity and their citizens enjoy more buying power despite a 50% tax rate, why does it matter what their tax rate is?

[CFLarsen]

I was responding to your post.

You brought up blasphemy. If you have something new to say, take it up in another thread.

[TragicMonkey]

You brought up blasphemy. If you have something new to say, take it up in another thread.

And you started waffling on about television! Probably you were going somewhere with that, but then realized it was a dead end. So now you suddenly decide that everyone should go back to the last conversation but one.

You made the claim that Denmark is one "of the best societies in the world to live in". I suggest that the existence of a blasphemy law is evidence against that claim.

[CFLarsen]

And you started waffling on about television! Probably you were going somewhere with that, but then realized it was a dead end. So now you suddenly decide that everyone should go back to the last conversation but one.

Nope. I am still waiting to know if someone can tell me if "The Root of All Evil" has aired in the US. Somehow, I doubt that is the case. Now, why could that be?

You made the claim that Denmark is one "of the best societies in the world to live in". I suggest that the existence of a blasphemy law is evidence against that claim.

An unenforceable law, yes. You keep leaving that out, even though you are perfectly aware of that. You are presenting only the part that supports your contention, but leaves out the part that proves you wrong.

Would you call that honest or dishonest?

[NoZed Avenger]

An unenforceable law, yes. You keep leaving that out, even though you are perfectly aware of that. You are presenting only the part that supports your contention, but leaves out the part that proves you wrong.

Would you call that honest or dishonest?


And your definition of "unenforceable" means that the law 'can be used to successfully prosecute people.'

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1655884&postcount=643

[CFLarsen]
I am saying that the law is unenforceable.

But I am not certain that the law could not lead to a conviction.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1658197&postcount=704

[CFLarsen]
[T]here was a possibility that the law could lead to charges and convictions. Nobody has claimed otherwise.
(Emph. added.)

And your country's chief prosecutor says that people can be prosecuted under it.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006_03_15_indexarch.php#114245038293010209

Although there is no basis for instituting criminal proceedings in this case, it should be noted that both provisions of the Danish Criminal Code contain a restriction of the freedom of expression. Section 140 of the Criminal Code protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and Section 266 b protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of their religion among other things. To the extent publicly made expressions fall within the scope of these rules there is, therefore, no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects. It is thus not a correct description of existing law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and one has to be ready to put up with ‘scorn, mockery and ridicule,

And you've admitted that you know your prosecutor says that he can enforce the law currently. Yet you continue to call that "unenforceable" without any support from the rest of the English-speaking world.

Would you call that "honest" or "dishonest"?

Take a while and give your best answer; this is not a timed quiz.

[CFLarsen]

Take a while and give your best answer; this is not a timed quiz.

Do you have anything new? Or just the same, shrill rants?

E.g., can you show me what, in today's Denmark, will get people found guilty of blasphemy? Or even being prosecuted? No? Still not able to do that? After all this time?

Being prosecuted is not the same as being guilty, you know. You get credit for trying (yet again!), but none for thinking I would fall for it.

Show me something new, if you want my attention.

[NoZed Avenger]

Do you have anything new? Or just the same, shrill rants?

E.g., can you show me what, in today's Denmark, will get people found guilty of blasphemy? Or even being prosecuted? No? Still not able to do that? After all this time?

Being prosecuted is not the same as being guilty, you know. You get credit for trying (yet again!), but none for thinking I would fall for it.

Show me something new, if you want my attention.

Show me your definition of "unenforceable" that means "can be prosecuted.

I have only asked a dozen times or so, and yet you've managed to miss that request every single time.


Your tactic here against TM is particularly galling, however.

You know that TM -- among many, many, many others -- disagrees with your private, secret definition of "unenforceable" - the one that contradicts every dictionary I caould find; the one referenced above as meaning effectively "can be enforced."

Let's assume for the moment that from some tortured bit of strange logic, you actually believe that "unenforceable" means some version of "can be prosecuted and jailed successfully." You also know that TM does not hold the same view.

From this difference of opinion you might explain why you feel he is wrong, you might evevn call him names and assume he is dumb. that would be rude and uncalled for, but at least is would be straightforward.

But you go one step even further. You say this:

An unenforceable law, yes. You keep leaving that out, even though you are perfectly aware of that. You are presenting only the part that supports your contention, but leaves out the part that proves you wrong.

Would you call that honest or dishonest?

After Ed knows how many pages arguing this point, you know for a fact that TM does not agree that the law is "unenforceable." In fact, everyone but you that I am aware of -- including your country's chief prosecutor and every other poster in that thread -- doesn't agree with you. Yet you take that agreement and try to imply that TM is being "dishonest."

What's your support? That he "leaves out" the other side of the argument.

And yet in making this spurious allegation, what do you do? You present your faulty conclusion that the law is "unenforcable" -- presenting only the part that supports ytour contention [your opinion], but leaving out the other side of the argument. IOW, you do precisely what you are accusing TM of doing in trying to label him as dishonest.

That tactic and your message are not factually correct and they certainly are not civil. Making a charge of dishonesty when you know that TM simply disagrees with your position is, frankly, beneath contempt.

[Elizabeth I]

What about military spending?


Some military spending is necessary. I count national defense as a basic service (and it IS provided for in the U.S. Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

And, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html)

[Ryokan]

Nope. I am still waiting to know if someone can tell me if "The Root of All Evil" has aired in the US. Somehow, I doubt that is the case. Now, why could that be?

Has it been aired in Denmark?

[CFLarsen]

Has it been aired in Denmark?

Yes, it has. In fact, it got a whole evening slot on DR2, the second national channel, together with discussion in the studio. The whole thing was rerun a day or two after.

I got it on DVD, so I can enjoy what Americans can't (or rather, aren't allowed to).


...

Nothing new, then.

[TragicMonkey]

Yes, it has. In fact, it got a whole evening slot on DR2, the second national channel, together with discussion in the studio. The whole thing was rerun a day or two after.


That's very nice, but it seems to be off-topic. If you have something new to say, why don't you start a new thread?

[Vitnir]

The root of all evil seems like my kind of film, if it has aired in Sweden I have missed it :(
It's not that I think the social democrats has done a poor job so far it's that I think someone else can make it even better. I happen to think the social democrats has forgotten just how many are out of jobs and it is their failure. Also when one party has been in power for the last 60 years or so I think you have to ask yourself the question if the current situation is perfect. If it isn't then you have to vote for someone else.

[HarryKeogh]

I got it on DVD, so I can enjoy what Americans can't (or rather, aren't allowed to).

We aren't allowed to? Has a law been passed regarding viewing of this program that I'm unaware of.

If anyone would like to see it, including Americans, you can see it on YouTube. It hasn't been broadcast on American television as far as I can tell though. But then again, so haven't thousands of hours of European programming. Hmm, guess we're "not allowed" to see that stuff either.

So we can see it, or at least anyone with access to the internet can.

[NoZed Avenger]

Nothing new, then.


Well, there was quite a bit new that highlighted your intellectual dishonesty regarding TM, but I can understand why you would want to snip all that and avoid arguing that point.

With regard to anything else, I need nothing new, since you have been completely unable to actually respond in a meaningful way to all of the "old" stuff.

Have you managed to find anyone (*anyone*) that actually agrees with your personal re-definition of "unenforcable" to mean "can be used to successfully prosecute and jail someone"? Just curious.

[CFLarsen]

We aren't allowed to? Has a law been passed regarding viewing of this program that I'm unaware of.

If anyone would like to see it, including Americans, you can see it on YouTube. It hasn't been broadcast on American television as far as I can tell though. But then again, so haven't thousands of hours of European programming. Hmm, guess we're "not allowed" to see that stuff either.

So we can see it, or at least anyone with access to the internet can.

It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.

Why would that be? Dawkins is world famous, and he tackles a very controversial subject. Controversial subjects always draw an audience, but...somehow...not this one.

[HarryKeogh]

It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.

Why would that be? Dawkins is world famous, and he tackles a very controversial subject. Controversial subjects always draw an audience, but...somehow...not this one.

The BBC airs hundreds upon hundreds of hours of original programming a year. American network television replays hardly any of it. To think something fishy is going on because they don't broadcast this particular special, when they're not in the habit of broadcasting any specials from BBC, seems odd.

[Kotatsu]

The root of all evil seems like my kind of film, if it has aired in Sweden I have missed it :(
It's not that I think the social democrats has done a poor job so far it's that I think someone else can make it even better. I happen to think the social democrats has forgotten just how many are out of jobs and it is their failure. Also when one party has been in power for the last 60 years or so I think you have to ask yourself the question if the current situation is perfect. If it isn't then you have to vote for someone else.

They've become far too keen on doing more or less anything to retain power. I have no doubt that if the Swedish Democrats (Sverigedemokraterna, our largest xenophobic party, for foreign readers) suddenly gained 10% of the governmental votes, the Social Democrats would consider cooperating with them if it made the difference between staying in power and being in opposition.

While I certainly support their core ideas of ages past, I sincerely dislike the nepotism and corruption which seem to be the hallmarks of any given Social Democrat government these days. I doubt that the privatizational strategies of the Alliance will make things better, though, and, further, that most of their policies will actually be better than what the new opposition might have come up with. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though, at least when it comes to employment.

[Vitnir]

The now defunct New Democrats comes to mind, their xenophobic proposals about immigrants where properly demonized at the time but lo and behold if not all their proposals are now in effect. So much for morals and principles for the social democrats, in economic policies the social democrats has moved so far to the middle its just silly to act worried at what the Alliance might do.
When it comes to privatizations, that has not been taboo for the social democrats anyway so when they act all indignant I just laugh.

[DaChew]

It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.

Why would that be? Dawkins is world famous, and he tackles a very controversial subject. Controversial subjects always draw an audience, but...somehow...not this one.

I think that the unanimous decision is that the show is commercially unviable. I watched a couple of minutes on line and while I found it interesting, if I was a network programmer, I wouldn't give it air time. Sponsors would dump out in seconds. You don't put controversial stuff like this on that alienates more than half of your sponsors intended audience. That is not good business.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves though. Has the producer, Channel 4, made the program available in U.S. NTSC format and dealt with the myriad of copyright issues? I notice it's not even for sale on Amazon which tells me there is still much work to be done before U.S. release is going to be possible.

[CFLarsen]

I think that the unanimous decision is that the show is commercially unviable. I watched a couple of minutes on line and while I found it interesting, if I was a network programmer, I wouldn't give it air time. Sponsors would dump out in seconds. You don't put controversial stuff like this on that alienates more than half of your sponsors intended audience. That is not good business.

My thoughts exactly.

Isn't that depressing? Living in a country where it is decided for you that you will not be interested in this, so you won't see it, based on what sells?

It is one thing that religious people control what you should watch, but should the market decide if we can see a world-renowned scientist argue against religious fanatics? In these post-9/11 days, what could possibly be more relevant?

If selling sugar and plastic is all your TV is good for, what is the point? What does that say about Americans? Shouldn't TV also be about challenging your views, about making you think? Oh, wait! It happens in politics, where you have all these pundits, who spew all kinds of confrontational opinions. You also have the Jerry Springer-type of shows, which only exist to elicit as strong an emotional response as posssible. You even have plenty of shows where religion is used to attack non-religious people.

But not shows that challenge religion.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves though. Has the producer, Channel 4, made the program available in U.S. NTSC format and dealt with the myriad of copyright issues? I notice it's not even for sale on Amazon which tells me there is still much work to be done before U.S. release is going to be possible.

Oh, come on. That cannot possibly be a concern. The issue is not formats. Let's not kid ourselves here.

[Kotatsu]

The now defunct New Democrats comes to mind, their xenophobic proposals about immigrants where properly demonized at the time but lo and behold if not all their proposals are now in effect. So much for morals and principles for the social democrats, in economic policies the social democrats has moved so far to the middle its just silly to act worried at what the Alliance might do.
When it comes to privatizations, that has not been taboo for the social democrats anyway so when they act all indignant I just laugh.

I agree; hence the "ages past" part. Modern Social Democrats are just as bad as anyone else (and all the seven large parties are more or less silly). However, I don't believe 100% privatization will be good no matter who performs it. I am willing to be proven wrong, though.

[Grammatron]

It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.


Evidence?

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

Where is the show being shown?

[TragicMonkey]

Where is the show being shown?

That's like saying this rock keeps tigers away. Do you see any tigers? Then it must be working!

[CFLarsen]

That's like saying this rock keeps tigers away. Do you see any tigers? Then it must be working!

And you will now show me a long list of programmes that demonstrates that there is no deficit of skeptical TV programmes on American television.

In effect, you will show me that there is really no need for skepticism in the United States of America. Everything is just peachy. Randi can just pack it up and go home.

[Grammatron]

And you will now show me a long list of programmes that demonstrates that there is no deficit of skeptical TV programmes on American television.

In effect, you will show me that there is really no need for skepticism in the United States of America. Everything is just peachy. Randi can just pack it up and go home.

We're still waiting for evidence of your claim.

[Hawk one]

Personally, I can find much better examples than a European-produced show not being aired in USA. Because frankly, that's really not proving anything.

So, let me have another take on TM's posts, hopefully presenting my point of view properly here.

TM, like Denmark, Norway's got a blasphemy paragraph. It has sometimes been bing threatened to be put by use from some fundies every now and then (both Christians and moslems, though in separate cases), but that's just about all there is.

Is it a bad and useless law? Certainly. I agree that it should be done and over with.

Is it an indication of that USA got more freedom than Norway?

Well, that's a bit tougher. To answer that, I feel we need to take a look at the real-life society and what is happening there.

In USA airing, swearing is consantly being censored. About a year back, a Norwegian golf player (Suzann Pettersen) was given a heavy fine for swearing during a live interview with an American TV channel. This would, I can guarantee you, never have happened in Norway. I know this, because on Norwegian television, Norwegian sportsmen do indeed swear every now and then (especially after losing a lot), and unless it's more than one occassional word, nobody cares. We don't even bother censoring the replay when showing it on the 7'o clock news.

And let's not forget about the South Park episode of scientology, which, for all practical purpouses, I will argue was censored away from being publically aired. Sure, you didn't have any blasphemy law to tag on it, but the lawyers representing the fundies found a way to make sure it was put off nonetheless. The worst thing that happens here is generally that some fundies cry out -afterwards- if they feel offended, but it's next to impossible to pull that cancelling stunt here.

So, here's how I see it: Norway's got a stupid blasphemy law, but we're in practicality pretty much free to say whatever we want about religion.

USA does not have that stupid law... But you are still not free, not even in the context of satirical cartoons, to say whatever you want about religion.

In a perfect world, there would of course be no stupid law and no practical censorship... But since it's not a perfect world, I'd rather live with a pretty much impotent and unused stupid law. But that's just me, of course.


EDITED to clarify about the swearing incident of Suzann Pettersen happening on American tv.

[CFLarsen]

We're still waiting for evidence of your claim.

What claim might that be?

[Grammatron]

What claim might that be?

I'll repost since 5 posts apperently is too long of a time frame for you.

It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.
Now please provide evidence for this.

[CFLarsen]

About a year back, a Norwegian golf player (Suzann Pettersen) was given a heavy fine for swearing during a live interview with an American TV channel. This would, I can guarantee you, never have happened in Norway. I know this, because on Norwegian television, Norwegian sportsmen do indeed swear every now and then (especially after losing a lot), and unless it's more than one occassional word, nobody cares. We don't even bother censoring the replay when showing it on the 7'o clock news.

In Denmark, we have women menstruating on TV (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100627/).

American TV censors a few pixels of male butts. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/)

Pardon me if I am unimpresssed.

[CFLarsen]

I'll repost since 5 posts apperently is too long of a time frame for you.


Now please provide evidence for this.

"It seems there is".

What part of that is above your level of comprehension?

I'm here for you, man. If there is something you don't quite grasp, please let me know. I am always willing to spend a few moments educating the deliberately stupid.

[Jerry_ex_machina]

And during that time, despite their efforts, were unable to keep a good society from emerging.

Matter of opinion. I'll trade you your "bad" liberal society for our "good" conservative society here in America. Hooray!!

[Grammatron]

Personally, I can find much better examples than a European-produced show not being aired in USA. Because frankly, that's really not proving anything.

So, let me have another take on TM's posts, hopefully presenting my point of view properly here.

TM, like Denmark, Norway's got a blasphemy paragraph. It has sometimes been bing threatened to be put by use from some fundies every now and then (both Christians and moslems, though in separate cases), but that's just about all there is.

Is it a bad and useless law? Certainly. I agree that it should be done and over with.

Is it an indication of that USA got more freedom than Norway?

Well, that's a bit tougher. To answer that, I feel we need to take a look at the real-life society and what is happening there.

In USA airing, swearing is consantly being censored. About a year back, a Norwegian golf player (Suzann Pettersen) was given a heavy fine for swearing during a live interview with an American TV channel. This would, I can guarantee you, never have happened in Norway. I know this, because on Norwegian television, Norwegian sportsmen do indeed swear every now and then (especially after losing a lot), and unless it's more than one occassional word, nobody cares. We don't even bother censoring the replay when showing it on the 7'o clock news.

Yes we have some censorship on public TV and I agree with you it's bad.

And let's not forget about the South Park episode of scientology, which, for all practical purpouses, I will argue was censored away from being publically aired. Sure, you didn't have any blasphemy law to tag on it, but the lawyers representing the fundies found a way to make sure it was put off nonetheless. The worst thing that happens here is generally that some fundies cry out -afterwards- if they feel offended, but it's next to impossible to pull that cancelling stunt here.

Wrong. Wrong and let's not forget WRONG. This is not an example of censorship as the government was not involved. Further more this episode was rerun recently. Was this an example of some internal struggle with-in Paramount corporate? Who knows, certainly looked that way but we don't know all the facts and thus using this as an example is a bad idea. Not to mention WRONG because it has nothing to do with the government.

So, here's how I see it: Norway's got a stupid blasphemy law, but we're in practicality pretty much free to say whatever we want about religion.

Hey so am I! I can say #@%$ those religious people, except I can't say it here because this forum prohibits this. Which nation are we to blame for this?

USA does not have that stupid law... But you are still not free, not even in the context of satirical cartoons, to say whatever you want about religion.

Why not? Because some paper will not publish it? I can start my own blog, newsletter or paper and under the First Ammendment can publish whatever crap I feel like.

In a perfect world, there would of course be no stupid law and no practical censorship... But since it's not a perfect world, I'd rather live with a pretty much impotent and unused stupid law. But that's just me, of course.

Then again you're not throwing stones in a glass house either, unlike some posters here.

[Grammatron]

"It seems there is".

What part of that is above your level of comprehension?

I'm here for you, man. If there is something you don't quite grasp, please let me know. I am always willing to spend a few moments educating the deliberately stupid.

Oh ok, so if prefex something with "it seems " I can make statements with nothing to back them up?

It seems Denmark is a religious and fundamentalist country what with unanimous support for a state church, monarchy and blasphemy laws.

[Hawk one]

Wrong. Wrong and let's not forget WRONG. This is not an example of censorship as the government was not involved. Further more this episode was rerun recently. Was this an example of some internal struggle with-in Paramount corporate? Who knows, certainly looked that way but we don't know all the facts and thus using this as an example is a bad idea. Not to mention WRONG because it has nothing to do with the government.
The government is not involved with what is being aired on television here either. Pretty much only private individuals ever try to censor anything shown on telly here too. Only time government's stepped in that I know, was because of a libel case in a newspaper article (and I trust you agree with me that serious libel, -if- that's what is happening, is a bad thing). And even then, it was pretty much the politicians on their own that did it, the actual government didn't do squat.

Good to hear that the episode's back to being allowed airing. But my point still stands that it would never have been pulled off here to begin with. Of course, around here, we don't have any high-high-high-up celebrity like Tom Cruise that's got more power than many politicians on what's to be allowed to broadcast.

I will also clarify that I don't necessarily restrict the term censorship to government, because frankly, it pretty much happens a lot other places as well (company X forbidding their employees to talk about lousy working conditions, to name but one hypothetical example). And it is with this broader definition in mind I still claim that the episode was, for a while, censored off the air thanks to Tom Cruise leveraging his fame to gain power over the CC executives.

[CFLarsen]

Oh ok, so if prefex something with "it seems " I can make statements with nothing to back them up?

No. I can back it up. And I do.

It seems Denmark is a religious and fundamentalist country what with unanimous support for a state church, monarchy and blasphemy laws.

You would be wrong, of course.

Denmark is one of the least religious and fundamentalist countries in the world.

The support is not unanimous.

We have one law on blasphemy. (When will you learn this? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting the facts?)

[TragicMonkey]

We have one law on blasphemy.

And that is an affront to reason, decency, liberty, and progress. Television network decisions in another country will not alter that. "Oh, we have it, but nobody likes it or believes in it"....but it's still there. Like a Confederate flag hanging in a politician's office. Oh, he doesn't believe in that stuff. Yet there it is.

[Hawk one]

And yet your "television decisions", where in fact religious people that shouldn't have any executive power over what is put on air still do, and where they often make a -practical and real-life affecting- affront to reason, decensy, liberty, and progress, still you don't complain about -that-?

The law is a dinosaur, yes. But if I'm going to pick my fights, I'd start with those that would actually affect me. That law doesn't, easy as that. I should know, I live here. But even here, the silly unwritten laws of USA affect me, what with how you usually sell us programs like "The Daily Show" pre-censored, to mention one thing.

[HarryKeogh]

When was the last time CBS, ABC, NBC or Fox re-broadcast a BBC show?

Does anyone think it is out of the ordinary that they didn't choose to re-broadcast this one particular show?

It seems Claus is being paranoid.

[Grammatron]

And yet your "television decisions", where in fact religious people that shouldn't have any executive power over what is put on air still do, and where they often make a -practical and real-life affecting- affront to reason, decensy, liberty, and progress, still you don't complain about -that-?

I don't watch their channel. There, problem solved.

The law is a dinosaur, yes. But if I'm going to pick my fights, I'd start with those that would actually affect me. That law doesn't, easy as that. I should know, I live here. But even here, the silly unwritten laws of USA affect me, what with how you usually sell us programs like "The Daily Show" pre-censored, to mention one thing.

What the hell are unwritten laws? Either there is a law or there isn't, I really don't see how there can be a grey area here.

[Grammatron]

No. I can back it up. And I do.
Ok, back up your statement then
It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers. I'll be waiting.

[CFLarsen]

When was the last time CBS, ABC, NBC or Fox re-broadcast a BBC show?

Does anyone think it is out of the ordinary that they didn't choose to re-broadcast this one particular show?

It seems Claus is being paranoid.

Am I?

How often is a program like "The Root of All Evil" broadcast on American TV? How often is the skeptical POV given airtime?

In fact, isn't that one of the things we are battling, as skeptics? The lack of programs such as this one?

Surely you are not going to say that everything is just peachy with the media?

I don't watch their channel. There, problem solved.

It isn't a question of what you choose to watch. It's a question of what you can watch.

Ok, back up your statement then
I'll be waiting.

Ehmmmm....I did: AFAIK, the show hasn't been aired.

Remember, we are talking about Richard Dawkins - not some unknown nincompoop. We are also talking about religious fanatics and the harm they do - in a post-9/11 world.

[TragicMonkey]

In fact, isn't that one of the things we are battling, as skeptics? The lack of programs such as this one?

It seems that quite a few people think that an actual blasphemy law is worse than the programming managers of a television network deciding what to air that will best compete with what their competitors are airing.

Surely you are not going to say that everything is just peachy with the media?

Has anyone said that? You're the one who brought up "the media". Somehow your feelings about American television programming excuses, condones, makes palatable a Danish blasphemy law.


We are also talking about religious fanatics and the harm they do - in a post-9/11 world.

Yeah, those religious fanatics. The ones who would, if they were in power, would pass a law against, lessee, at random...blasphemy?

Of course, the ultra-civilized "one of the best societies" Danes don't need to fear that. They already have one!

[CFLarsen]

It seems that quite a few people think that an actual blasphemy law is worse than the programming managers of a television network deciding what to air that will best compete with what their competitors are airing.

Has anyone said that? You're the one who brought up "the media". Somehow your feelings about American television programming excuses, condones, makes palatable a Danish blasphemy law.

Yeah, those religious fanatics. The ones who would, if they were in power, would pass a law against, lessee, at random...blasphemy?

Of course, the ultra-civilized "one of the best societies" Danes don't need to fear that. They already have one!

Wow.... You really seem to have a problem with this. You keep bringing it up, again and again, despite the fact that you know it can't be enforced.

One can't help but wonder... Is it the law itself that concerns you? Or are you merely trying to find something - anything - so you can criticize me?

I mean...I don't see you bringing this up when other Danish members of this forum post.

Do you understand why I ask this? Is there something you want to get off your chest? Something about me?

[TragicMonkey]

Wow.... You really seem to have a problem with this. You keep bringing it up, again and again, despite the fact that you know it can't be enforced.

Why, because you keep dodging it. You try to excuse it, then you try to explain it, then you attempt to raise a smokescreen of irrelevance about something else somewhere else.

And, as has been pointed out already in this thread, I do not "know it can't be enforced". You seem to suffer from the habit of using "as you well know" when nobody agrees with what you're saying. It doesn't really help your arguments. It just makes you look condescending.


One can't help but wonder... Is it the law itself that concerns you? Or are you merely trying to find something - anything - so you can criticize me?

I mean...I don't see you bringing this up when other Danish members of this forum post.

Do you understand why I ask this? Is there something you want to get off your chest? Something about me?

Just when I think you can't possibly have a higher opinion of yourself, it shoots up another notch!

[CFLarsen]

Why, because you keep dodging it. You try to excuse it, then you try to explain it, then you attempt to raise a smokescreen of irrelevance about something else somewhere else.

Dodging it? Hardly - I have been addressing this, head-on. I have never tried to excuse it - on the contrary, I have clearly stated that I oppose this law.

Somehow, you have a very hard time acknowledging this.

And, as has been pointed out already in this thread, I do not "know it can't be enforced". You seem to suffer from the habit of using "as you well know" when nobody agrees with what you're saying. It doesn't really help your arguments. It just makes you look condescending.

You don't? Then, pray tell, could you provide me with real-life examples of just how this law could be enforced?

I keep asking for this - not just you, but other people as well - but I never get an answer.

Just when I think you can't possibly have a higher opinion of yourself, it shoots up another notch!

Answer the question: Is it the law, or is it me?

[TragicMonkey]

Dodging it? Hardly - I have been addressing this, head-on. I have never tried to excuse it - on the contrary, I have clearly stated that I oppose this law.

Somehow, you have a very hard time acknowledging this.

Because you brush off the insanity of having such a law by saying "it can't be enforced." Why not? What's stopping them from enforcing it? Other laws? Armed militias? Guaranteed "get out of jail free" cards issued to all citizens? A binding legal contract where all the judiciary swear to never convict?

It can be enforced. It just isn't being enforced at the moment. The Sword of Damocles isn't falling right now...will you sit beneath it?


You don't? Then, pray tell, could you provide me with real-life examples of just how this law could be enforced?

I keep asking for this - not just you, but other people as well - but I never get an answer.

Because it's a ridiculous question. How are any laws enforced? Like that.

Answer the question: Is it the law, or is it me?

Make me, O Master of the Blue Horizons!

[NoZed Avenger]

Wow.... You really seem to have a problem with this. You keep bringing it up, again and again, despite the fact that you know it can't be enforced.


"[C]an't be enforced"?!

Larsen -- you have previously agreed (with your country's chief prosecutor) that the law can potentially be used even today to successfully prosecute people and jail them.

If that isn't "can be enforced" then what precisely does that mean in your world?!

What kind of secret defintion are you using, anyway?



ETA: Maybe no one else is being asked about this because . . .just say, for example . . that they aren't continually making nutty claims that the law can't be enforced, but that it can be used to kjail people. Just a guess.

[Grammatron]

It isn't a question of what you choose to watch. It's a question of what you can watch.

IF it's available on DVD I can watch.

Ehmmmm....I did: AFAIK, the show hasn't been aired.


Hmm
It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.
Still waiting.

[CFLarsen]

Because you brush off the insanity of having such a law by saying "it can't be enforced." Why not? What's stopping them from enforcing it? Other laws? Armed militias? Guaranteed "get out of jail free" cards issued to all citizens? A binding legal contract where all the judiciary swear to never convict?

Do you want to look at insane laws in the US? How do you know they will not be enforced?

It can be enforced. It just isn't being enforced at the moment. The Sword of Damocles isn't falling right now...will you sit beneath it?

Because it's a ridiculous question. How are any laws enforced? Like that.

It is the pivotal question (which is why I suspect you avoid it): If you can't give an example, then you acknowledge that the law is, in fact, unenforceable.

Make me, O Master of the Blue Horizons!

Such a snooty response does nothing to support the idea that it is the law.

IF it's available on DVD I can watch.

You still don't get it. We are talking about what they choose to show on TV.

Hmm

Is that all you have to say? Aren't you going to address that this is Richard Dawkins? That this is a highly relevant issue? No comments on that?

Still waiting.

And you got your answer, several times.

[plindboe]

The blasphemy law is indeed a disgrace, but since it's not being used it's not really that big a deal. Every country in the world has outdated laws not in use, just search on Google for "weird laws" and have a laugh.

Also it's no wonder that an anti-religious program is not aired on telly in a country where most of the viewers are religious, had I owned a network I wouldn't broadcast it either despite being anti-religious myself.

You guys need to find more important issues to discuss, what a waste of time.

[TragicMonkey]

Do you want to look at insane laws in the US? How do you know they will not be enforced?

A. I don't know they will not be enforced. Some of them are.
B. Did I ever claim the US didn't have loony laws?
C. And even if the US has a million crazy laws, would that make Denmark's blasphemy law acceptable?


It is the pivotal question (which is why I suspect you avoid it): If you can't give an example, then you acknowledge that the law is, in fact, unenforceable.

Then why have it? Hmmmmm? Why not get rid of it? What's stopping it from being enforced? And why can't whatever's stopping it from being enforced get rid of the law?


Such a snooty response does nothing to support the idea that it is the law.

But it's the only possible response to King Claus ordering people around. You do tend to lose your temper around this point. Are you going to swear at me again? That was funny!

[Hawk one]

Because you brush off the insanity of having such a law by saying "it can't be enforced." Why not? What's stopping them from enforcing it? Other laws? Armed militias? Guaranteed "get out of jail free" cards issued to all citizens? A binding legal contract where all the judiciary swear to never convict?

It can be enforced. It just isn't being enforced at the moment. The Sword of Damocles isn't falling right now...will you sit beneath it?

WHat's pretty much stopping it from being enforced are pretty much the same reasons that a hell of a bunch of these laws (http://www.main.com/~anns/other/humor/sillylaws.html) aren't being enforced. People do reckognise it as a dinosaur law, and as such the cops and federal attorneys won't waste any resources on it, and the general public won't care.

Take a look at those laws. I'm willing to bet that plenty of them are in fact false claims, but let's assume at least 10% are true. Try to understand why you haven't heard about any of them being enforced lately (and if they were, I'm pretty sure it'd make the news quickly). Pretty much the same reasons will apply here: The people at large don't care about "blasphemy" in a legal sense. Not even most of our religious ones. Which isn't by the way in majority, because last time a big survey was done, about 65% of our population was agnostic or atheistic. It's as practically likely that this law will send someone to jail as someone will arrest a male for winking at an unknown lady in Iowa. You keep on asking why this is, but at least you can aknowledge that it is so here in the first place.

And again, why do you keep insisting on equalling law to society, when I have told you twice already it's not necessarily so? Why don't you actually fight -real- happenings of religiously based censorship first and foremost?

[CFLarsen]

A. I don't know they will not be enforced. Some of them are.

And some are not? Why not?

B. Did I ever claim the US didn't have loony laws?
C. And even if the US has a million crazy laws, would that make Denmark's blasphemy law acceptable?

Of course not. It does raise the question why you are so keen on dissing Denmark for this one law, when you have a great many crazy laws in your own country.

I know, I know: You've made it pretty clear that it isn't a question of the laws in either country, but simply the fact that I come from Denmark.

Then why have it? Hmmmmm? Why not get rid of it? What's stopping it from being enforced? And why can't whatever's stopping it from being enforced get rid of the law?

Why do you have crazy laws in the US? Why not get rid of them? Could it be the reasons are the same?

But it's the only possible response to King Claus ordering people around. You do tend to lose your temper around this point. Are you going to swear at me again? That was funny!

Ordering? I ask you a relevant question, and would like an answer. Don't you want answers to your questions?

Or is this just an attempt of stirring up some s**t, just for the heck of it? It sure looks like it.

[TragicMonkey]

Of course not. It does raise the question why you are so keen on dissing Denmark for this one law, when you have a great many crazy laws in your own country.

But not blasphemy laws. A blasphemy law is a far greater affront to reason and modernity than requiring all donkeys to wear a diaper on Main Street, or restricting alcohol sales in some counties on days with a full moon.

I know, I know: You've made it pretty clear that it isn't a question of the laws in either country, but simply the fact that I come from Denmark.

Observation 1: Place A has characteristic B.
Retort by Partisan: Oh, yeah? Well Place C has characteristic D!

Does that seem a reasonable counter? You don't accept that sort of response from anyone else. I don't see why you expect people should accept it from you.

[CFLarsen]

You skipped this:

Why are some crazy US laws not enforced?

[TragicMonkey]

You skipped this:

Why are some crazy US laws not enforced?

Because I'm not interested in answering. Firstly, because I don't know if they aren't enforced. Secondly, whether a law is enforced or not is irrelevant in determining whether it's a good law, a just law, or a decent law. Thirdly, what do US laws about anything other than blasphemy have to do with a blasphemy law of Denmark?

Those oranges aren't getting any applelier, no matter how many times you demand it.

[CFLarsen]

Because I'm not interested in answering. Firstly, because I don't know if they aren't enforced. Secondly, whether a law is enforced or not is irrelevant in determining whether it's a good law, a just law, or a decent law. Thirdly, what do US laws about anything other than blasphemy have to do with a blasphemy law of Denmark?

Let's see:

You have no problems criticizing a crazy Danish law which you know is not enforced. But you are not "interested" in examining if crazy US laws are enforced or not.

You have no problems making a big deal of whether the Danish law is enforceable or not. But you think it is "irrelevant", if a crazy law happens to be American.

You have no problems pointing out crazy laws in Denmark, as evidence that Denmark is not a "hotbed of enlightenment". But you refuse to address crazy laws in the US for the same reason. You find it "irrelevant".

Those oranges aren't getting any applelier, no matter how many times you demand it.

Why is it apples and oranges? We are talking about laws that reflect whether or not countries are "hotbeds of enlightenment", aren't we?

[TragicMonkey]

Let's see:

You have no problems criticizing a crazy Danish law which you know is not enforced. But you are not "interested" in examining if crazy US laws are enforced or not.

You have no problems making a big deal of whether the Danish law is enforceable or not. But you think it is "irrelevant", if a crazy law happens to be American.

You have no problems pointing out crazy laws in Denmark, as evidence that Denmark is not a "hotbed of enlightenment". But you refuse to address crazy laws in the US for the same reason. You find it "irrelevant".

Why is it apples and oranges? We are talking about laws that reflect whether or not countries are "hotbeds of enlightenment", aren't we?

Have I claimed that the US is a hotbed of enlightenment? You cannot berate me for not defending a position I have never assumed. Once again, you tilt at strawmen. A is not B, and attacking B is not a defense of A.

You're going around the same tired circle. If someone criticizes Denmark, you criticize their country. A Danish blasphemy law is nowhere near as bad as NBC programming choices. Does that sound like a reasonable, valid point? Why haven't you addressed Japanese whaling regulations, or the acceptable length of skirts for girls attending convent schools in Guatemala, or what's on the menu in the typical Greek restaurant? Is it because they have nothing to do with Denmark's blasphemy law?

[CFLarsen]

Have I claimed that the US is a hotbed of enlightenment? You cannot berate me for not defending a position I have never assumed. Once again, you tilt at strawmen. A is not B, and attacking B is not a defense of A.

OK, you don't think that the US is a hotbed of enlightenment. So, why pick on Denmark?

Is this law the only reason why you feel Denmark is not a hotbed of enlightenment?

You're going around the same tired circle. If someone criticizes Denmark, you criticize their country. A Danish blasphemy law is nowhere near as bad as NBC programming choices. Does that sound like a reasonable, valid point? Why haven't you addressed Japanese whaling regulations, or the acceptable length of skirts for girls attending convent schools in Guatemala, or what's on the menu in the typical Greek restaurant? Is it because they have nothing to do with Denmark's blasphemy law?

I could ask the same question: Why don't you want to address crazy US laws?

I'm game. Contrary to you, I am not afraid of discussing uncomfortable issues.

[Grammatron]

Do you want to look at insane laws in the US? How do you know they will not be enforced?



It is the pivotal question (which is why I suspect you avoid it): If you can't give an example, then you acknowledge that the law is, in fact, unenforceable.



Such a snooty response does nothing to support the idea that it is the law.



You still don't get it. We are talking about what they choose to show on TV.

I didn't realize TV programs became the arbitrar of Freedom. Good to know! If I start listing shows that were not broadcast in Denmark, can I cry censorship or Blasphemy law?

Is that all you have to say? Aren't you going to address that this is Richard Dawkins? That this is a highly relevant issue? No comments on that?

Woopty-doo it's Richard Dawkins. That's my comment.

And you got your answer, several times.
Perhaps, but you neglected to post them here thus I can not see them.

[Mike B.]

And you will now show me a long list of programmes that demonstrates that there is no deficit of skeptical TV programmes on American television.

In effect, you will show me that there is really no need for skepticism in the United States of America. Everything is just peachy. Randi can just pack it up and go home.

Well you've heard of the Penn and Teller show or "Mythbusters" or anti-Creationist programs on "Nova" on PBS...etc.

But hey I think it "seems" that any country that does not put the Penn and Teller show "Bulls!t" on their programing is not really a free country.

See how silly this is.

(BTW, I really think the Danish blasphemy law is not really much of an issue.)

[TragicMonkey]

OK, you don't think that the US is a hotbed of enlightenment. So, why pick on Denmark?

I don't "pick on" Denmark. I merely point out, when people try to claim it as "one of the best societies", that it has a rather glaring flaw.

Is this law the only reason why you feel Denmark is not a hotbed of enlightenment?

Nope.


I could ask the same question: Why don't you want to address crazy US laws?

Because the topic bores me. It's been covered before. And since I'm not defending them, or trying to excuse them, it would be a pretty short thread.

Claus: Hurr hurr hurr, some stoopid American laws are stoopid!
TM: I agree.
Claus: Hurr hurr hurr. Me kill air marshal now! Rraarr!


I'm game. Contrary to you, I am not afraid of discussing uncomfortable issues.

Boring <> uncomfortable. You really don't know me at all. I'm not a nationalistic crank, so it doesn't bother me in the least to acknowledge the idiocies perpetrated in my country.

[CFLarsen]

I didn't realize TV programs became the arbitrar of Freedom. Good to know! If I start listing shows that were not broadcast in Denmark, can I cry censorship or Blasphemy law?

It is one of them.

Woopty-doo it's Richard Dawkins. That's my comment.

Really? You don't consider Dawkins one that people will listen to? You'd rather prefer someone with more clout? Someone who really has the attention of Americans? Like Oprah? Larry King? Geraldo?

I don't "pick on" Denmark. I merely point out, when people try to claim it as "one of the best societies", that it has a rather glaring flaw.

That's your mistake. You think that, because something is one of the best, it automatically means it is close to perfect. Nobody has said that.

Nope.

Do tell me everything you think makes Denmark not a hotbed of enlightenment!

Because the topic bores me. It's been covered before. And since I'm not defending them, or trying to excuse them, it would be a pretty short thread.

It "bores" you to discuss crazy American laws, but it doesn't bore you to discuss crazy Danish laws. You'd rather talk about someone else's flaws?

Tsk, tsk...

Boring <> uncomfortable. You really don't know me at all. I'm not a nationalistic crank, so it doesn't bother me in the least to acknowledge the idiocies perpetrated in my country.

I know you from what you post here. You are solely responsible for that.

[TragicMonkey]

That's your mistake. You think that, because something is one of the best, it automatically means it is close to perfect. Nobody has said that.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Nobody has said that, either.

Do tell me everything you think makes Denmark not a hotbed of enlightenment!

Why, it has a blasphemy law! Didn't you notice?

It "bores" you to discuss crazy American laws, but it doesn't bore you to discuss crazy Danish laws. You'd rather talk about someone else's flaws?

I love how you imagine that tu quoque is perfectly valid when you use it, but a fallacy when anybody else does. If you want to discuss crazy American laws, start up another thread. Once again, I'm not defending crazy laws, so it would be a pretty dull thread. You'd have to invent my position for me, then attack it. But you seem to enjoy doing that.

I know you from what you post here. You are solely responsible for that.

Oooooh! Heavens! I guess I'll never be one of the cool kids now!

[CFLarsen]

Did I say that? No, I didn't. Nobody has said that, either.

*sigh* You seem most muddled.

If it is not one of the best societies, how far down is it, compared with other countries? Which countries are better than Denmark?

Why, it has a blasphemy law! Didn't you notice?

You said that already. You also said that there were other things. Please list them.

I love how you imagine that tu quoque is perfectly valid when you use it, but a fallacy when anybody else does.

It's not a Tu Quoque. I point out that you are highly selective in what you want to discuss.

If you want to discuss crazy American laws, start up another thread. Once again, I'm not defending crazy laws, so it would be a pretty dull thread. You'd have to invent my position for me, then attack it. But you seem to enjoy doing that.

This thread is about Sweden and their new government. You brought up the Danish law on blasphemy, so don't fall back on this ruse.

Oooooh! Heavens! I guess I'll never be one of the cool kids now!

What on Earth are you talking about??

[TragicMonkey]

*sigh* You seem most muddled.

If it is not one of the best societies, how far down is it, compared with other countries? Which countries are better than Denmark?


Why, I didn't think that in order to point out a glaring flaw in the claim to be "one of the best" one needed to have a ranking of all 193 or so countries.

You said that already. You also said that there were other things. Please list them.

No.


It's not a Tu Quoque. I point out that you are highly selective in what you want to discuss.

Person 1: There is a problem with A.
Person 2: Oh, yeah? Well, B has problems, too!!!

Yeah, Person 1 is "highly selective in what he wants to discuss". Because he's not falling for a tu quoque. (Which is inappropriate anyway because Person 1 has cheerfully admitted that B has plenty of silly laws. You wish to discuss something that we both agree upon. How much discussion can there be?)

This thread is about Sweden and their new government. You brought up the Danish law on blasphemy, so don't fall back on this ruse.

Yes, yes, whenever you fail to score a point, you accuse me of derailing the thread, then you think up something clever about television programs and stick it in there. This thread stopped being about Sweden and their new government the instant you stuck your nose in it, just like every thread you post in.

What on Earth are you talking about??

Ray Patterson, Sanitation Commissioner?!

[CFLarsen]

Why, I didn't think that in order to point out a glaring flaw in the claim to be "one of the best" one needed to have a ranking of all 193 or so countries.

I didn't ask you to, and you know it. All you need is list the countries that rank higher than Denmark.

No.

Why not?

Person 1: There is a problem with A.
Person 2: Oh, yeah? Well, B has problems, too!!!

Yeah, Person 1 is "highly selective in what he wants to discuss". Because he's not falling for a tu quoque. (Which is inappropriate anyway because Person 1 has cheerfully admitted that B has plenty of silly laws. You wish to discuss something that we both agree upon. How much discussion can there be?)

It isn't the existence of crazy laws I want to discuss. I want to discuss why you think some laws in the US are not enforced.

Think that is relevant to discuss?

Yes, yes, whenever you fail to score a point, you accuse me of derailing the thread, then you think up something clever about television programs and stick it in there. This thread stopped being about Sweden and their new government the instant you stuck your nose in it, just like every thread you post in.

In which case you should have no problems discussing it here.

Ray Patterson, Sanitation Commissioner?!

I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify.

[TragicMonkey]

I didn't ask you to, and you know it. All you need is list the countries that rank higher than Denmark.

Who says that there's a ranking at all? Perhaps "hotbed of enlightenment" is an on/off sort of thing; you've either got it or you haven't, rather than by degrees. Denmark hasn't got it. And to anticipate your inevitable (and childish) response, no, I'm not claiming the US has it, either. Shall I bold, so that you will feel less secure in putting up that strawman? I don't think the US is a hotbed of enlightenment. Oh, why do I bother. You'll claim I said it, anyway.


Why not?


Because I don't want to. Not everybody lets you be the dungeon master of these reindeer games.

It isn't the existence of crazy laws I want to discuss. I want to discuss why you think some laws in the US are not enforced.

Think that is relevant to discuss?

Have I said some laws in the US are not enforced? You're the one who thinks enforcement, degree of, is a valid excuse for ridiculous laws.

In which case you should have no problems discussing it here.

On the contrary, it's a reason against discussing almost anything here.

I don't understand what you mean. Please clarify.

Well, in less blasphemy-conscious societies, we have this thing called "a joke". We also have something called "a search engine", which can be used for research in case one doesn't get the joke. But perhaps you do not have these things in Denmark, what with people kicking in doors to search for blasphemy and all. Here's a tip: hide the blasphemy under the floorboards. They won't look there for a good three minutes, which gives you plenty of time to go online and complain about not finding your preferred shows being aired on various networks in other countries.

[CFLarsen]

Who says that there's a ranking at all?

You: When you say that Denmark is not one of the best societies in the world to live in, then you accept that there is a ranking.

Perhaps "hotbed of enlightenment" is an on/off sort of thing; you've either got it or you haven't, rather than by degrees. Denmark hasn't got it. And to anticipate your inevitable (and childish) response, no, I'm not claiming the US has it, either. Shall I bold, so that you will feel less secure in putting up that strawman? I don't think the US is a hotbed of enlightenment. Oh, why do I bother. You'll claim I said it, anyway.

Is any country in the world a "hotbed of enlightenment"?

Because I don't want to. Not everybody lets you be the dungeon master of these reindeer games.

That does take the wind completely out of your criticism. You say that Denmark is not one of the best societies in the world to live in, but you refuse to tell us which countries are better.

Have I said some laws in the US are not enforced?

You said that you knew that some are enforced. You must know some that are not, then. If you don't, then you admit you have no idea what you are talking about.

You're the one who thinks enforcement, degree of, is a valid excuse for ridiculous laws.

Absolutely not. I have repeatedly said that I think the Danish blasphemy law is a mistake.

On the contrary, it's a reason against discussing almost anything here.

And yet, you are so eager to discuss the Danish blasphemy law... :rolleyes:

Well, in less blasphemy-conscious societies, we have this thing called "a joke". We also have something called "a search engine", which can be used for research in case one doesn't get the joke. But perhaps you do not have these things in Denmark, what with people kicking in doors to search for blasphemy and all. Here's a tip: hide the blasphemy under the floorboards. They won't look there for a good three minutes, which gives you plenty of time to go online and complain about not finding your preferred shows being aired on various networks in other countries.

You are making absolutely no sense. What does this have to you with you never being one of the "cool kids"?

[Morrigan]

It seems there is a unanimous decision among network executives that this is not something for American viewers.

Still waiting for evidence of this. Considering that many other BBC programs were not shown, why single out this one as being unanimously rejected? Also, assuming it IS unanimously rejected, what is the evidence that the reason for its rejection is that "it's not something for American viewers" (implying some sort of insidious censorship) instead of the more plausible "it's not something that will sell"?