French Paper Offices Bombed Over A Joke [Archive]

Hax

11-03-2011, 11:49

As of writing this, there have been bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq as well, and long before any planes were hijacked, Islam itself was hijacked by its own followers.

Yes, this is a disgusting act, and I would fully support the extradition of the perpetrators to say, Saudi-Arabia. However, there is a great risk that we will alienate Muslims who go about their lives in a relatively normal way. I'm not saying these kinds of papers or satirical cartoons will lead to radicalisation, but if we insist on blaming Islam (and thus, logically following, all of its adherents) radicalisation will at least become more attractive to younger Muslims.

Blame Wahhabism, blame Salafism for all you like (I know I will), but blaming all of Islam? Unwise as it will only lead to further radicalisation.

Fragony

11-03-2011, 12:04

Who's blaming the whole of Islam? I blame a completely misguided respect for the whole of Islam. Why do you think we can get away with this http://blog.balder.org/billeder-blog/Cartoon-Gregorius-Nekschot-Mohammed-Deflowering-Aisha.jpg (appeared in HP-de Tijd)

And in France they burn down stuff because of Mohammed with a clowns-nose. Because we disrespect Islam, they are used to it by now :balloon2:

Hax

11-03-2011, 12:12

Fragony, I think this is actually the first time you've made a post with which I completely agree.

Furunculus

11-03-2011, 12:26

i tend to agree with the telegraphs's resident lefty:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100115012/be-gods-curse-upon-you-the-dangers-of-mixing-satire-and-islam/

Nonetheless, in a world that has been getting safer, one religion is stubbornly holding on to a violent past. I'm not going to call for "ordinary Muslims" to denounce terror. They do, fairly regularly. But it would be nice to think that one day in the not-too-distant future we in the newspaper industry can make bad jokes about Mohammed as often as we do about Christ, without fear of brutal reprisals. In fact, the right note to end on is to congratulate Christianity worldwide for leaving its savage past behind: let's hope Islam can follow.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2011, 12:46

Major Robert Dump

11-03-2011, 13:49

What's funny is that it was actually not meant as in insult, but it shows the papers naivette by thinking that a good intentioned joke would be taken well. The "no depiction" of mohammed is not even a Koran thing, it came later in other writings.

That being said, if it happened in the US my first blame would go to rednecks who took the joke seriously, and thought the newspaper had hired a muslim.

Andres

11-03-2011, 14:51

It would increase prophets too.

ROFL :laugh4:

Hax

11-03-2011, 15:07

Sorry, but one then ends up at the point of doing things to ensure that no one person or group is alienated. Feminists would rather that all pornography was utterly scrapped. yet we don't. Why should an imported religion be any different?

Do we blame women for feminism?

The "no depiction" of mohammed is not even a Koran thing, it came later in other writings.

I don't think that's entirely true. The Qur'an states several things concerning images and idols but doesn't explicitly ban them. However, the strong emphasis on aniconism is a relatively new phenonemon, dating to around the 19th century and has also expressed itself in the demolition of some of the oldest sites of Islam (including the mosque of Abu Bakr and the graves of several of the ahl al-bayt).

Major Robert Dump

11-03-2011, 15:38

I just think Islam would fare a lot better if they would ditch the later writings and stick to the Koran. Most Christians don't adhere to books subsequent to the Bible, who were these yahoos that came along 100s of years later and decided to made addendums to the koran?

Although not a Christian, I am a huge fan of hairy chested, Tom Selleck Jesus always reaching his hands out to the viewer. It's very effective, although it did wierd me out when I masterbated in my Grandmas guest room. It has done wonders for the religion. Muslims need to adopt something similar, a strapping Moahmmed with a 5 oclock shadow, a prominant package and not at all overweight.

Vladimir

11-03-2011, 15:40

You just went to a very dark place. We need to party.

rory_20_uk

11-03-2011, 15:46

Women don't get "blamed" for feminism, but nor are the views of feminists pandered to at the expense of everyone else. The Koran should be the the uppermost book in the house. My copy is next to the bible on a middle shelf. To me it's just a book.

Those that don't want pictures then don''t purchase them and avoid them - don't destroy others' stuff.

~:smoking:

Major Robert Dump

11-03-2011, 15:47

You should see my screenplay. It will probably get me killed

Papewaio

11-03-2011, 20:45

Why should an imported religion be any different?
~:smoking:

So apart from the likes of Stonehenge and Druids aren't all the other religions imported in UK?

=][=

I agree that all should be subject to satire.

Centurion1

11-03-2011, 21:29

why is it perfectly acceptable to make a joke about Jesus or the christian god in poor taste but Mohamed who was merely a man is off limits. I'm sick of double standards.

Viking

11-03-2011, 23:16

Who says these were extremists

Because petrol bombs is not what the average person is up to. 2+2.

Hax

11-03-2011, 23:26

Everything should be subjected to satire. I think that's the key message here.

why is it perfectly acceptable to make a joke about Jesus or the christian god in poor taste but Mohamed who was merely a man is off limits. I'm sick of double standards.

So..what is your point? Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't satirise Islam.

Rhyfelwyr

11-04-2011, 00:48

So..what is your point? Nobody is arguing that we shouldn't satirise Islam.

I don't think they should satirise it in such a manner.

I guess it was supposed to be clever or funny or something but it wasn't. All it did was offend people, it didn't add anything to anything.

Honestly it feels like nowadays people take their liberties as a license to behave in the worst ways they can imagine.

Sure you can scream about your rights I'm not trying to take them away from you, but what happened to just choosing to be respectful?

Everything should be subjected to satire. I think that's the key message here.

I don't like this overly-competitive approach to the 'marketplace of ideas', where we are told to take a Darwinian approach towards beliefs so that only the strongest survive. As if we in the west have to brutally hack away at Islam until it either disappears or conforms to our own belief systems.

We should just chill out and respect others beliefs. Not because of the validity of the beliefs themselves, but because of the fact that they are held so dear to people.

Otherwise all this confrontation just alienates people.

Instead of always focusing on our right to be insensitive, why don't we just try being nice to people?

Hax

11-04-2011, 00:54

I don't like this overly-competitive approach to the 'marketplace of ideas', where we are told to take a Darwinian approach towards beliefs so that only the strongest survive. As if we in the west have to brutally hack away at Islam until it either disappears or conforms to our own belief systems.

Not Islam. Islamism and radicalism, perhaps, but not Islam.

We should just chill out and respect others beliefs. Not because of the validity of the beliefs themselves, but because of the fact that they are held so dear to people.

Not when these beliefs are in total opposition to our ideals. While the threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has often been overestimated, it is not something that should be left as it is. It is to be utterly beat down through intellectual debate and indeed, satire. It's what put the coffin in the nail of the religious monopoly on civil affairs during the Enlightenment, and to me, one of the most valued traditions here.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-04-2011, 01:06

Not Islam. Islamism and radicalism, perhaps, but not Islam.

Not when these beliefs are in total opposition to our ideals. While the threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has often been overestimated, it is not something that should be left as it is. It is to be utterly beat down through intellectual debate and indeed, satire. It's what put the coffin in the nail of the religious monopoly on civil affairs during the Enlightenment, and to me, one of the most valued traditions here.

Hmmm. I think that Europeans are aware now that Islam(ists) are the only people who do this. Sure, the IRA blew stuff up, and were much better at it than European Muslims, but they were not really a religious group, they saw themselves as an indiginous resistence movements. These radical Muslims want nothing less than to destroy our civilisations, just because they hate it.

My conclusion is this: they should be ignored until or unless they become a genuine military threat, then they should be brutally suppressed. It is, frankly, incumbent on Muslims to mock these people as idiots just as it is incumbent on Christians to point out the logical and theological fallacies in Evangelicalism.

Hax

11-04-2011, 01:34

These radical Muslims want nothing less than to destroy our civilisations, just because they hate it.

Hmm, this is actually a less educated opinion than I'm used to hearing from you, PVC.

I wouldn't say that radical Muslims want to destroy western civilisation. When you look at the demographic background of radical Muslims, you'll find that they are mostly younger and well-educated (western-educated, in fact) with very little background in actual Islamic theology. I think you'll find that most of them don't even visit mosques regularly and typically engage in such western practices that they find so horrific (prostitution, gambling and drinking). Very upset about a lot of things, but not serious jihadis, really.

There are some few very sad misguided people amongst them, but they represent the smallest minority of a minority.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-04-2011, 02:00

Hmm, this is actually a less educated opinion than I'm used to hearing from you, PVC.

I am by nature a very violent man, this topic gets my blood up and I tend to abandon my regular reserve.

Let me try again.

Not withstanding your point about many of the young European Muslims' lifestyles, the fact remains that they locate Western culture, which is essentially Romano-Greek with a Germanic twist and a Christian gloss, as the Other, and they attack it any time they percieve it to threaten their interpretation of their religion. As to their theological ignorance - the same is true of hardline Evangelical Christians. Any well read Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Zorastrian scholar will appreciate that the aim of all those religions is essentially the same: to bring men to a better relationship with the Lord God. The fact is, I would willingly go to war with Muslims who tried to spread their faith through conquest, but I wouldn't hate them for it.

Fragony

11-04-2011, 08:32

Because petrol bombs is not what the average person is up to. 2+2.

There was nobody inside. The 'attack' wasn't claimed

4

rory_20_uk

11-04-2011, 11:33

So apart from the likes of Stonehenge and Druids aren't all the other religions imported in UK?

=][=

I agree that all should be subject to satire.

Unless they were teleported in, they were imports too.

As an agnostic I think that all religions and other positions should be equally open for satire.

I thought that the comment was funny.

With the IRA they did have a valid point that broadly speaking, the English invaded Ireland and they were fighting the occupier. A fair part of areas that are Islamic occupied what was Christian territory, so there should be bombs going off in Egypt in revenge for the sacking of Alexandria.

~:smoking:

Hax

11-04-2011, 12:29

With the IRA they did have a valid point that broadly speaking, the English invaded Ireland and they were fighting the occupier. A fair part of areas that are Islamic occupied what was Christian territory, so there should be bombs going off in Egypt in revenge for the sacking of Alexandria.

There's so much wrong with that comparison that I don't really know where to start. First of all, the perception of the conqueror by the conquered, secondly, the treatment of the native population by the ruling elite. Those are two things that come to mind immediately, but it's a really bad comparison and it completely overlooks the particularities of either place.

Rhyfelwyr

11-04-2011, 12:35

Not when these beliefs are in total opposition to our ideals. While the threat of Islamic radicalism in the West has often been overestimated, it is not something that should be left as it is. It is to be utterly beat down through intellectual debate and indeed, satire. It's what put the coffin in the nail of the religious monopoly on civil affairs during the Enlightenment, and to me, one of the most valued traditions here.

I agree that it is a problem when people don't share some of our more basic beliefs like freedom of expression etc. But I disagree that "intellectual debate" or satire is the answer to the problem. Do either of these actually engage extremists?

Intellectual debate has its place but it doesn't really stir up the ordinary person. Things like rhetoric, identity, gut-feelings/prejudices etc will always trump it easily.

With the IRA they did have a valid point that broadly speaking, the English invaded Ireland and they were fighting the occupier.

You sound like Colonel Gadaffi.

rory_20_uk

11-04-2011, 12:58

You sound like Colonel Gadaffi.

Yeah... Hitler was a vegetarian and was against smoking. I am against smoking... so I sound like Hitler...?

I imagine Gadaffi also ordered a coffee, and so have I. The similarities just stack up.

~:smoking:

Beskar

11-04-2011, 13:27

I am against smoking...

~:smoking:

:laugh4:

Viking

11-04-2011, 15:50

There was nobody inside. The 'attack' wasn't claimed

4

A population is divided into different categories of aggresiveness etc. Only a truly devout belief can change such levels of an individual, not a casual one.

Major Robert Dump

11-04-2011, 16:02

I've "engaged" a few extremists in my time. But there is far more satisfaction in reducing their numbers by educationg their wives and children, like bringing a black girlfriend home to meet Great Grandpa.

Fragony

11-04-2011, 16:41

A population is divided into different categories of aggresiveness etc. Only a truly devout belief can change such levels of an individual, not a casual one.

Ya sure

Rhyfelwyr

11-04-2011, 16:47

Yeah... Hitler was a vegetarian and was against smoking. I am against smoking... so I sound like Hitler...?

I imagine Gadaffi also ordered a coffee, and so have I. The similarities just stack up.

~:smoking:

Yeah you got me my point was that you support the massacre of Libyan civilians, and not that you share Gadaffi's well-known take on the sitation in Norn Iron which is not so much black and white as it is plain wrong.

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

gaelic cowboy

11-04-2011, 18:29

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

Well to quote Tommy Tiernan "it wasn't the Mexicans" :clown:

Greyblades

11-04-2011, 18:30

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?
...Well we kinda did, several times, even back when we called ourselves Norman. We have been kicking the crud out of eachother since the 12th century.

rory_20_uk

11-04-2011, 23:11

Yeah you got me my point was that you support the massacre of Libyan civilians...

What foreigners do to themselves in their own ghastly country is none of my concern. I merely ask that they don't come over here and do it.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-04-2011, 23:18

C'mon, "the English invaded Ireland", you srs?

It is true, Rhy, notwithstanding the complex subsequent history.

Rhyfelwyr

11-05-2011, 02:16

What invasion are you all talking about? The Norman one? Because that is not in the slightest bit related to the (Provisional)IRA and their fight to free the "6 occupied counties".

I am just bemused at Rory talking about an "English" occupation when Ireland had only ever been incorporated into the British state, and the only population group the Irish are fighting against is a largely Scottish one.

What foreigners do to themselves in their own ghastly country is none of my concern. I merely ask that they don't come over here and do it.

I share this sentiment.

Tellos Athenaios

11-05-2011, 07:22

I am just bemused at Rory talking about an "English" occupation when Ireland had only ever been incorporated into the British state, and the only population group the Irish are fighting against is a largely Scottish one.

English/British/whatever: when you're not on that island, what's the difference? ~;)

Banquo's Ghost

11-05-2011, 13:57

What invasion are you all talking about? The Norman one? Because that is not in the slightest bit related to the (Provisional)IRA and their fight to free the "6 occupied counties".

Sophistry at best. rory actually wrote "with the IRA..." whereas you have tried a desperate save by adding (Provisional). Before the Provos, the IRA fought the occupation of the entire country.

I am just bemused at Rory talking about an "English" occupation when Ireland had only ever been incorporated into the British state, and the only population group the Irish are fighting against is a largely Scottish one.

And I am bemused that you can perpetuate such an extraordinary claim. The history is certainly more complicated than just "Irish v English" but your contention here is comedic - but not untypical of loyalist apologists, especially those residing far-off in Scotland.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-05-2011, 14:23

Sophistry at best. rory actually wrote "with the IRA..." whereas you have tried a desperate save by adding (Provisional). Before the Provos, the IRA fought the occupation of the entire country.

And I am bemused that you can perpetuate such an extraordinary claim. The history is certainly more complicated than just "Irish v English" but your contention here is comedic - but not untypical of loyalist apologists, especially those residing far-off in Scotland.

I think what Rhy is trying to express is that the modern IRA paint this grand narrative of the struggle against the invading English, when most of the people they have been fighting are Scots Gaels who originally left Ireland and then came back, albeit hundreds of years later. There is a certain inconsistancy to a narrative that claims such antiquity ignoring that fact.

However, I was referring to the much more recent struggle which had its roots in Catholic disenfranchisement in a Protestant-dominated government in Northern Ireland.

I don't even want to get started on the 1920's, where protestants fought in the IRA.

Brenus

11-05-2011, 21:19

“Well he was involved in a best seller.” He didn’t write it himself. And it was printed after his death, after the gathering of his notes.

“Why should an imported religion be any different?” : Why should a religion be any different: Fixed for you.

“We should just chill out and respect others beliefs.” We should respect the Giant Flying Spaghetti (reformed Church of), the Jedi Cult and Father X-Mass (my grand-daughters are firm believers)? And why?

Rhyfelwyr

11-05-2011, 21:46

Sophistry at best. rory actually wrote "with the IRA..." whereas you have tried a desperate save by adding (Provisional). Before the Provos, the IRA fought the occupation of the entire country.

complete bollox, I put Provisional in brackets because I presumed that's what Rory was talking about (since we were talking about the Gaddafi link) and I did it to distinguish them from the earlier IRA.

I did that because when people talk about the IRA they almost always mean the Provos, but IMO its not fair to tar the earlier version with the same brush.

I was not trying to make a "desperate save", of course the Norman invasion was every bit as irrelevant to the IRA of the 1920's as it was to the Provisionals from the 60's+.

Then again you probably know everything I just said above and were just a bit keen to score a point.

And I am bemused that you can perpetuate such an extraordinary claim. The history is certainly more complicated than just "Irish v English" but your contention here is comedic - but not untypical of loyalist apologists, especially those residing far-off in Scotland.

"loyalist apologists". Ho frickin hum whats the point in even trying.

But at least tell me which of my claims were so "comedic". That Ireland was incorporated into a British state. Or that the modern loyalist population is largely of Scots descent.

As for being "far-off in Scotland", do you think I would have more of a right to comment on events in Ulster if I lived in the Republic?

EDIT: In fact Banquo, what about your Republican heroes like James Connolly, born and raised in Edinburgh? Guess they never knew what was going on?

Ulster loyalism/Irish republicanism is a lot more relevant today in (parts of) Scotland than 26 of your own islands counties.

gaelic cowboy

11-05-2011, 23:07

Etc etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPIsTKpAoE4

Would you prefer the terms occupation and subjugation to invasion then??

gaelic cowboy

11-05-2011, 23:39

Hmm, this is actually a less educated opinion than I'm used to hearing from you, PVC.

I wouldn't say that radical Muslims want to destroy western civilisation. When you look at the demographic background of radical Muslims, you'll find that they are mostly younger and well-educated (western-educated, in fact) with very little background in actual Islamic theology. I think you'll find that most of them don't even visit mosques regularly and typically engage in such western practices that they find so horrific (prostitution, gambling and drinking). Very upset about a lot of things, but not serious jihadis, really.

There are some few very sad misguided people amongst them, but they represent the smallest minority of a minority.

Maybe thats because they have a differant idea of what western civilisation is yes/no??? when you read there statements they have an awful lot to say in the them about the family and the womans place in it.

They look at all the freedoms from freedom of religion to the freedom of a womens body and see weakness, then they equate wearing jeans and eating burgers as West when in fact those are really just byproducts.

of course the big open secret is you cant hope to defeat the West unless you become more like them.

Rhyfelwyr

11-06-2011, 00:16

lol@ the video.

I am sorry I am angry gc, it is because of RL issues and Banquo's tone made me mad.

Would you prefer the terms occupation and subjugation to invasion then??

Sure there was a lot of that in Ireland's history, just as there were invasions. The question is how far was the PIRA's (and even the IRA's)campaign a direct response to those (and in particular, from "the English").

Was it in response to the 12th century Norman invasion? Hardly.

Was it in response to 16-19th century 'colonialism'. The Gaelic Irish no doubt were subjugated by an Anglo-Irish elite (that had nothing to do with the long-assimilated Normans, and were very much Anglo-Irish as opposed to English, as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms made clear), and yet so were the Presbyterian Scots settlers.

Was it in response to 20th century loyalist rule? Aye, now you're onto something, although once again it is not English oppression the Republicans are against. They have some grievances in terms of civil rights through an Irish-based institution in the NI Parliament, although mainly they are fighting a civil war because of their nationality.

And of course polite British society hates loyalists. Don't think Westminster would bat an eyelid about handing over the 6 counties to Dublin. There's a reason the first shootout the British army had in NI in the troubles wasn't with the IRA, but on the Shankill Road against loyalists.

We've always been bad at PR. When republicans supported the ANC in their imagery/rhetoric, we chose apartheid. When they chose Palestine, we chose Israel. When they chose the progressive left, we chose the reactionary right. Because that's just how we roll, yo.

Banquo's Ghost

11-06-2011, 09:56

lol@ the video.

I am sorry I am angry gc, it is because of RL issues and Banquo's tone made me mad.

Well, I'm sorry for that, but I've heard enough twisting of history from both sides to last me a lifetime. This most recent post #56 is a good example of the current loyalist theme (amusingly similar to the paranoia of the nationalists thirty years back) whereas I can assure you, having been in the thick of the military aspect of the Troubles in the eighties, how powerful a lobby was that of Loyalism and how tenaciously London defended those interests. I even have a number of graves I can show you to prove it.

But nothing I say will convince you, and we are way off topic, so I shall bow out.

Tuuvi

11-06-2011, 22:49

“We should just chill out and respect others beliefs.” We should respect the Giant Flying Spaghetti (reformed Church of), the Jedi Cult and Father X-Mass (my grand-daughters are firm believers)? And why?

I would say for the same reason we should respect atheism.

Ridiculing religion should be legal of course, and I don't think anyone deserves to be bombed for it, but I don't think it's very constructive or helpful either.

Fragony

11-07-2011, 06:06

Got us talking about it. See? It's constructive. And frankly, religion deserves to be ridiculed, especially the islam because it's the nuttiest one

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-07-2011, 15:23

Got us talking about it. See? It's constructive. And frankly, religion deserves to be ridiculed, especially the islam because it's the nuttiest one

If that were true then Atheism would deserve to be ignored, because Atheists, believing in nothing, would obviously have nothing to say.

Further, there are many, many "nuttier" or just plain nonsensical religions. Scientology and modern "Wicca" being top of my list.

Fragony

11-07-2011, 15:38

If that were true then Atheism would deserve to be ignored, because Atheists, believing in nothing, would obviously have nothing to say.

Not on the jubject of religion of course, is best not to ask my opinion

CountArach

11-07-2011, 16:17

As interesting as the topic may be, the subject at hand is the depiction of Mohammed in a French newspaper, or more generally.

If you wish to discuss any notions of the invasion (or not) of Ireland by the British, you may feel free to open another topic, either here or in the Monastery.

Tuuvi

11-07-2011, 17:21

Got us talking about it. See? It's constructive. And frankly, religion deserves to be ridiculed, especially the islam because it's the nuttiest one

Nutty to you, because you don't share their belief. Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.

rory_20_uk

11-07-2011, 17:32

Nutty to you, because you don't share their belief. Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.

Looking at paedophilia from a paedophile's point of view makes it seem ok.

~:smoking:

Fragony

11-07-2011, 17:46

Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yes it deserves to be ridiculed.

Hax

11-07-2011, 17:59

Nothing "deserves" to be satirised or ridiculed. However, I think for the sake of relativation satire is almost obligatory for artists.

Tuuvi

11-07-2011, 18:04

Looking at paedophilia from a paedophile's point of view makes it seem ok.

~:smoking:

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me, so I'll answer with a question. Is it ok for Evangelical Christians to bash gay people?

Jeez haven't you people ever read To Kill A Mockingbird? :laugh4:

Fragony

11-07-2011, 18:43

Nothing "deserves" to be satirised or ridiculed.

If it's pretty damn rediculous, of course it does

Hax

11-07-2011, 19:01

Would you read the entire sentence next time?

Fragony

11-07-2011, 19:28

Would you read the entire sentence next time?

It is an entire sentence, I just didn't quote the full post. But fine, satire is mild, I think it is ok to go beyond mild and be outright offensive. The sooner they realise that they will just have to live with that the better

Papewaio

11-07-2011, 21:57

Nutty to you, because you don't share their belief. Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.

That is part of the path to understanding is standing in the other's shoes

What also has to be looked at are other elements in society open to the barbs of satire?

IMDHO other sections have satire aimed at them. It is one of the requirements of a free society to have a free press. In the same section as the main editors editorial is normally the political cartoons. These satirical cartoons ransack leaders of business, politics and the church.

So my stance is not only satire a requirement of a free press which they weild with a painted wand. It would be a discriminative disservice to apply the stains of satire to all of society bar one pocket. Islam has joined the establishment when it is seen as one of the facets of society to hold a mirror up to.

Beskar

11-07-2011, 23:57

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me, so I'll answer with a question. Is it ok for Evangelical Christians to bash gay people?

Do Evangelical Christians get petrol bombed for it? If I was to openly criticise or write in a newspaper "Next paper will be edited by Jesus Christ", should those same people petrol bomb me?

Everything should be open to criticism and whilst some things people say or do are simply immature or childish, the answer isn't to petrol bomb them. The solution is to tut at them and just carry on walking shaking your head.

An example could be on the forum, sometimes a member might post something really immature. What do we do? We point out how immature they are and simply continue living on life.

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

For example. go to Papewaio and make a comment about the shape and colour of his avatars turban about it looking like explicit content. Does he now have the right for violent action against me such as throwing Petrol bombs at me or doing a DDOS against my computer?

The answer is No, but he is free to point out my characters hides in the dark with a mask because my face makes babies cry.

Crazed Rabbit

11-08-2011, 03:53

I have seen the follow up the paper has done, and I am pleased -
NOTE: This may cause offence.
https://i.imgur.com/Tpt2Z.jpg

CR

Nowake

11-08-2011, 04:15

NOTE: This may cause offence.
https://i.imgur.com/Tpt2Z.jpg
/applauds them for making the point

Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. And, thus, ridiculed :wink2:

Fragony

11-08-2011, 08:15

I have seen the follow up the paper has done, and I am pleased -
NOTE: This may cause offence.
https://i.imgur.com/Tpt2Z.jpg

CR

Why would that cause offense, that is obviously not the prophet. Pretty pathetic that. Ah well if they can pretend to have maintained some of their self-respect as a satirical magazine this way, watered down power to them

Vladimir

11-08-2011, 13:58

For example. go to Papewaio and make a comment about the shape and colour of his avatars turban about it looking like explicit content. Does he now have the right for violent action against me such as throwing Petrol bombs at me or doing a DDOS against my computer?

:laugh4:

I'll throw LOL bombs because I've never looked at it like that before!

Papewaio

11-08-2011, 20:44

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

For example. go to Papewaio and make a comment about the shape and colour of his avatars turban about it looking like explicit content. Does he now have the right for violent action against me such as throwing Petrol bombs at me or doing a DDOS against my computer?

ROFL :laugh4: ... Never saw that. All I can say is at least mine doesn't come with wings. :laugh:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 01:58

I detect two problems in the direction of travel this thread has taken.

1. Criticism is not the same is ridicule, and while you have the right to criticism you should not have the right to riculde because where criticism is reasoned and constructive ridicule is simply making mock of what you[/y] consider to be ricidulous. The problem is that your opinion is subjected and not objective, I find Beskar's contention that man can improve himself, within the context of his monistic and ultra-physicalist model absurd, but I would never oppose it purely on that terms. Further, ridicule is always cruel and mean spirited, its purpose is to confirm you in your prejudices by provoking an uncivilised reaction from your target and thereby validating your sense of intellectual superiority.

2. The dominance of "evidence", that is [i]scientific evidence in intellectualist discourse impoverishes the discussion and opens it's proponents up to ridicule on the grounds of a logical fallacy.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-09-2011, 02:16

Fragony

11-09-2011, 05:34

ridicule is always cruel and mean spirited

Sure, but if satire provokes such a strong reaction cruelty is no more than a blunt instrument. Christians are used to be being treated like that by now, muslims will have to get used to it as well. Oddly enough the same people who are cruel towards christians are sweating pure respect when it comes to islam, not going to go along with that myself. Might look mean but it really isn't imho

Nowake

11-09-2011, 10:13

The stakes are crystal clear. Survival.
As Mark Twain dryly put it: No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live.
And when you bring a backward religion in the midst of the French secular society, you have absolutely no choice but to retaliate against ridicule if you wish to keep buggering on, because so much of what you brainwash your small community of immigrants into is contradicted by the reality on the ground, that you have to take yourself seriously at any cost if you wish to not be simply effaced.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 12:38

You do have the right to ridicule and it's often good to do so. People often do it in a bad way but that's true for criticism as well. The daily show is dumb but it's not like other news shows aren't.

No, I don't think so. The Daily Show really only holds people up to ridicule, but it is comedy, i.e. funny, and it pitches itself towards the audience, not the object of criticism.

There is a profound difference between showing someone up in their own foolishness, and setting out to provoke a negative reaction.

It is also clearly untrue that we have a "right" to ridicule, if we do it is a severely curtailed right. I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?

Sure, but if satire provokes such a strong reaction cruelty is no more than a blunt instrument. Christians are used to be being treated like that by now, muslims will have to get used to it as well. Oddly enough the same people who are cruel towards christians are sweating pure respect when it comes to islam, not going to go along with that myself. Might look mean but it really isn't imho

Consider, where is the joke in Muhammad with a bomb-shaped Turban if no one reacts? The same with the Muslim kissing another man, it isn't funny. That's an important point - this form of ridicule isn't inherently comedic, it deliberately provokes a negative reaction so we can tutt at the dirty Muslims.

I always say, if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent, if you just want to insult my beliefs I reserve the right to thump you.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 12:44

Fragony

11-09-2011, 12:54

Consider, where is the joke in Muhammad with a bomb-shaped Turban if no one reacts? The same with the Muslim kissing another man, it isn't funny. That's an important point - this form of ridicule isn't inherently comedic, it deliberately provokes a negative reaction so we can tutt at the dirty Muslims.

Actually I think the muslim kissing another man is hilarious but not as they intended, they just had to react and they reacted in a way that isn't offensive, no muslim is going to get worked up over that. And they know it isn't offensive, they are playing it safe. What makes it extra pathetic is that they are satirising a non-existant event because French muslims hardly condemned the attack, they didn't get any further than 'it's wrong to attack but there should be limits to freedom of speech', and the satirical magazine obliges them, cowards. The joke's on them.

extra extra funny, while the magazine was singing the usual hymns of the leftist church 'only a few blabla' thousands of messages rolled in on their facebook of muslims applauding the attack

I always say, if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent, if you just want to insult my beliefs I reserve the right to thump you.

Yet you don't so why would I. But if muslims can't take an innocent joke, go for less innocent, get so nasty that even the most moderate muslim has steam comming from his ears. I'll spare you what that looks like here, would be breaking forum rules anyway

Hax

11-09-2011, 12:59

Sorry, Frags, but that would be absolutely useless. The point of satire is to spark intelligent debate concerning the exact nature of certain elements of an ideology, not to make as many people as angry as possible. That's just asking for trouble.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 13:03

Nowake

11-09-2011, 13:11

I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?
(...) if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent
(...) Oh rubbish, every single God and religion have survived sustained ridicule from their inception up to the present day
i) Yes, you can; and it's being done all the time; I don't even think gay communities protest that particular type of humour unless for very specific circumstances.
ii) Since the joke is on your belief system, you will very rarely be able to stomach it. No matter, the joke is not being made for your ears.
iii) You are so right mister PVC. Hey, you really take me back with that one, I remember centuries upon centuries during which cracking a joke about Jesus would at most get you burned at the stake. Tops :bow:

Any type of ridicule is guaranteed by our freedom of speech. Hate speech disguised as ridicule isn't. The paper cannot be blamed for the later in this case.

No, that's asking for war.
I know many red-blooded chaps who can't wait to die for their God.
I also know there are many sang-froid chaps who will be happy to help them.

Fragony

11-09-2011, 13:26

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 13:36

iii) You are so right mister PVC. Hey, you really take me back with that one, I remember centuries upon centuries during which cracking a joke about Jesus would at most get you burned at the stake. Tops :bow:

You need to read your history more carefully.

Catholics burned hundreds of protestants at the stake, but now there are hundreds of thousands. You can't kill and idea, or beat it into submission.

Nowake

11-09-2011, 13:54

Vladimir

11-09-2011, 14:16

Are you guys focusing on the word "ridicule?" Because while you may harass, intimidate, cajole, or whatever some people out of their beliefs you'll create a more entrenched and extreme believer out of others.

Ridicule is a pejorative term practiced by lesser men. You'll have more luck letting someone reach his own conclusion about the faults of his beliefs than by being an ass.

Nowake

11-09-2011, 14:34

You know, just to tie a neat little ribbon over my argument and leave it at that, because I do not want to annoy anyone further :tired:

Freedom of speech is important, and it must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people take to be offensive. Religion remains a major obstacle to basic reforms that reduce unnecessary suffering. Think of issues like contraception, abortion, the status of women in society, the use of embryos for medical research, physician-assisted suicide, attitudes towards homosexuality, and the treatment of animals. In each case, somewhere in the world, religious beliefs have been a barrier to changes that would make the world more sustainable, freer, and more humane.

So, we must preserve our freedom to deny the existence of God and to criticize the teachings of Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, and Buddha, as reported in texts that billions of people regard as sacred. Since it is sometimes necessary to use a little humor to prick the membrane of sanctimonious piety that frequently surrounds religious teachings, freedom of expression must include the freedom to ridicule as well.

Fragony

11-09-2011, 15:30

Ridicule is a pejorative term practiced by lesser men.

No burning an office over a joke about your imaginary friend is nice, please. If me mocking these goat:daisy:makes me the lesser man ah well been called worse than that. There are perfectly fine deserts for their kind, less confusing

Vladimir

11-09-2011, 15:38

No burning an office over a joke about your imaginary friend is nice, please. If me mocking these goat:daisy:makes me the lesser man ah well been called worse than that. There are perfectly fine deserts for their kind, less confusing

Frags, you're pretty cool and I would hang out with you if given the chance, but that statement just confirms mine. That's insulting to me, a non-Muslim of European decent, and you didn't even put much effort into it.

Fragony

11-09-2011, 15:51

That's insulting to me, a non-Muslim of European decent, and you didn't even put much effort into it.

I can do better but it makes the moderators sad, and they already are of a fragile disposition it would be mean. (I hope you aren't going to bomb my office by the way)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 15:56

Does giving any contrarian answer equate to giving a logical contrarian answer? Focus a bit.
The point was that religion cannot tolerate ridicule and has to bloodily insulate itself as best it can.
In order to survive protestant ridicule, the catholics killed as many as they were able. You just gave the perfect example.

What about the Roman ridicule of the early Christians, Academic ridicule of the Lollards.....

Make a more careful reading of history, burning at the stake is not a reaction to ridicule it is a perfectly coherent theological response to heresy, but then given you ignorance of Church history I would hardly expect you to grasp such delicate nuance.

Your point fails because you confuse actual motive with your prejudiced perception.

Watchman

11-09-2011, 16:16

Nowake

11-09-2011, 16:44

I am well aware every one of us here is or was a history buff in some way, but precisely because of that, it is pretty useless to waste time and side-tracking the main theme by pointing obvious or extremely well known facts every time someone doesn’t write NxN explanatory notes to an idea. Historical facts are known and taken into consideration Watchman, I have not majored in History but I probably read just as much as many qualified professors did when I was younger, nevermind that I participated in quite a few national olimpiads on International history – modelled here after http://www.imo-official.org (there isn’t an International phase for history).

I also get that here most people’s passion for History leads them to believe knowledge of History makes one an intellectual, when that doesn’t even begin to describe the concept unless it is part of a personal culture with a solid grasp on all subjects, from math to philosophy. Perhaps overreacting a bit and I pre-emptively apologise for that, but this insistence to nitpick phrases which are not at all untrue, just not all-encompassing, simply to display knowledge of some historical minutiae (which is not even the case now) is pointless.

And the point stands, Catholics moved in to suppress the spread of a Lutheranism which was ridiculing the state of the Church by pointing out the fallacies of their thesis and their degenerate morals. The Catholics did everything in their power to stop militarily a war of ideas. It is what established religion always does to protect itself against ridicule. It cannot fight, as Mark Twain asserted when he wrote the quip I quoted on the previous page, truth-revealing ridicule with reason.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-09-2011, 18:00

There is a profound difference between showing someone up in their own foolishness, and setting out to provoke a negative reaction.

But ridicule can mean either.

It is also clearly untrue that we have a "right" to ridicule, if we do it is a severely curtailed right. I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?

Yes. Why not?

A right to ridicule involves a right to do any number of stupid, mean spirited, cruel things that it isn't right to do. There's a difference between legal or natural rights and moral right.

The stakes are crystal clear. Survival.
As Mark Twain dryly put it: No God and no religion can survive ridicule. No political church, no nobility, no royalty or other fraud, can face ridicule in a fair field, and live.
And when you bring a backward religion in the midst of the French secular society, you have absolutely no choice but to retaliate against ridicule if you wish to keep buggering on, because so much of what you brainwash your small community of immigrants into is contradicted by the reality on the ground, that you have to take yourself seriously at any cost if you wish to not be simply effaced.

This is exactly right, PVC you shouldn't ignore "fair field".

Although of course, the truth can stand up to ridicule and so this argument is at an impasse from the start.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-09-2011, 22:18

Catholics and Protestants waged bloody war replete with hair-raising atrocities on each other over the issue of whose reading of the Scriptures was more righteous, on and off, for something like a round century. All it led to was mutual exhaustion and nobody halfway sane bothering anymore. (Instead they settled for persecuting minorities inside their own territories and producing mean, petty satire about each other.)

While that's true, in broad strokes, but the "war" continued, it was simply the secular states that were exhausted, the doctors in the universities continued to fight it out, hence the aforementioned pamphlets, but all that ink and rags didn't make any difference either. The crucial point is that the situation didn't change until the two sides sat down and had civilised debates at the start of the twentieth century. Rational dialogue, not ridicule, changed how people felt and thought.

And the point stands, Catholics moved in to suppress the spread of a Lutheranism which was ridiculing the state of the Church by pointing out the fallacies of their thesis and their degenerate morals. The Catholics did everything in their power to stop militarily a war of ideas. It is what established religion always does to protect itself against ridicule. It cannot fight, as Mark Twain asserted when he wrote the quip I quoted on the previous page, truth-revealing ridicule with reason.

Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything, so your second sentence makes no sense. As to the first part, the military campaigns were extremely late in the day. By the time of the thirty years war both Wyclif and Huss had been condemned and Luthor and Calvin were loose upon the world. The cat was so far out of the bag it had died of extreme old age, and so had all it kittens, after having huge families of their own. As to the violent internal reactions - they were extreme because of the internal politics of the time.

But ridicule can mean either.

Yes. Why not?

A right to ridicule involves a right to do any number of stupid, mean spirited, cruel things that it isn't right to do. There's a difference between legal or natural rights and moral right.

Well in my country I can't, and I also can't ridicule individuals or I can be sued for slander and defamation of character.

This is exactly right, PVC you shouldn't ignore "fair field".

Most (all?) world religion have been ridiculed in pretty much every "field" and it hasn't made one iota of difference.

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 00:39

I was going to say something, but I think I will just wait until the conversation condenses back on to a single topic.

Tuuvi

11-14-2011, 07:29

That is part of the path to understanding is standing in the other's shoes

What also has to be looked at are other elements in society open to the barbs of satire?

IMDHO other sections have satire aimed at them. It is one of the requirements of a free society to have a free press. In the same section as the main editors editorial is normally the political cartoons. These satirical cartoons ransack leaders of business, politics and the church.

So my stance is not only satire a requirement of a free press which they weild with a painted wand. It would be a discriminative disservice to apply the stains of satire to all of society bar one pocket. Islam has joined the establishment when it is seen as one of the facets of society to hold a mirror up to.

Do Evangelical Christians get petrol bombed for it? If I was to openly criticise or write in a newspaper "Next paper will be edited by Jesus Christ", should those same people petrol bomb me?

Everything should be open to criticism and whilst some things people say or do are simply immature or childish, the answer isn't to petrol bomb them. The solution is to tut at them and just carry on walking shaking your head.

An example could be on the forum, sometimes a member might post something really immature. What do we do? We point out how immature they are and simply continue living on life.

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

For example. go to Papewaio and make a comment about the shape and colour of his avatars turban about it looking like explicit content. Does he now have the right for violent action against me such as throwing Petrol bombs at me or doing a DDOS against my computer?

The answer is No, but he is free to point out my characters hides in the dark with a mask because my face makes babies cry.

In my first reply to this thread I said that satire, etc. should be legal and that nobody deserves to be bombed for it. And I agree that satire can be a good thing, however when it crosses the line and becomes ridicule with the intent to offend others it ceases to be constructive, in my opinion.

Nowake

11-14-2011, 16:06

:shrug:

And the point stands, Catholics moved in to suppress the spread of a Lutheranism which was ridiculing the state of the Church by pointing out the fallacies of their thesis and their degenerate morals. The Catholics did everything in their power to stop militarily a war of ideas. It is what established religion always does to protect itself against ridicule. It cannot fight, as Mark Twain asserted when he wrote the quip I quoted on the previous page, truth-revealing ridicule with reason.
Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything, so your second sentence makes no sense.

As to the first part, the military campaigns were extremely late in the day. By the time of the thirty years war both Wyclif and Huss had been condemned and Luthor and Calvin were loose upon the world. The cat was so far out of the bag it had died of extreme old age, and so had all it kittens, after having huge families of their own. As to the violent internal reactions - they were extreme because of the internal politics of the time.
I find it rather hard to accept you would, in good faith, contradict me with such an argument.

Perhaps it is truly just a blind-spot in your historical lectures, yet it seems so crazy to write with such certainty that “the military campaigns came extremely late [because heretics as] Wycliff and Huss had been condemned by the time of the thirty years war,” as if conflicts which lasted decades and even bear the name of one of them, such as the Hussite Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars), had never happened, nevermind the engagements of the XVIth century. There’s no argument to contest the fact that their uprising was Crusaded against. I would incline to believe you simply prefer to contradict me for some reason though.

I won’t comment on the petty way in which you dismiss a historically validated assertion in your first statement.
I suggest we get passed our debate in that abortion thread thingy, if that is what causes this silly antagonistic attitude. We surely can raise above it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-14-2011, 23:13

:shrug:

I find it rather hard to accept you would, in good faith, contradict me with such an argument.

Perhaps it is truly just a blind-spot in your historical lectures, yet it seems so crazy to write with such certainty that “the military campaigns came extremely late [because heretics as] Wycliff and Huss had been condemned by the time of the thirty years war,” as if conflicts which lasted decades and even bear the name of one of them, such as the Hussite Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars), had never happened, nevermind the engagements of the XVIth century. There’s no argument to contest the fact that their uprising was Crusaded against. I would incline to believe you simply prefer to contradict me for some reason though.

Wyclif was active from the 160's to 1384, when he died of a stroke. His condemnation at Blackfriars (his third trial) condemned his ideas, particularly as regarded temporal power and the Eucharist, but he was allowed to retire to his Parish in Lutterworth. In 1409 Archpishop Arundel published his "Constitutions" which severly curtailed religious debate and Biblical translation, the "Law of Burning" allowing for the burning of heretics had already been passed in 1401. Despite this, no rebellion occured until 1415, and as late as March 1413 Sir John Oldcastle, the Lollard Knight, was able to avoid condemnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Oldcastle

As to the Hussites, well Huss traveled volantarily to the Council of Constance in 1415, where he and Wyclif were both condemned and Huss was executed. The Council also provided the first Ecumunical Condemnation of what would become "Protestant" doctrine, it has in fact been argued that Constance galvanised "Protestantism" by opposition, given that (as your own link shows) the Hussite Wars did not begin until 1419 my point stands.

Concerted military effort began very late in the day, Wyclif was more than 30 years dead before a proper condemnation of his ideas could be promulgated from the Holy See (partly due to internal schism, but that's not the point) and rebellion and Catholic "Crusades" come later. The cat was already well and truly out.

I always argue in good faith, and I think the majority of patrons here would support me in that claim.

Maybe it's the fact that I have a much more nuanced view of medieval religious practice and politics than you?

I won’t comment on the petty way in which you dismiss a historically validated assertion in your first statement.
I suggest we get passed our debate in that abortion thread thingy, if that is what causes this silly antagonistic attitude. We surely can raise above it.

I don't like you because of the way you treat people you dissagree with and in particular your habit of denigrating your opponent's intellect, and integrity. I am opposing you here because you demonstrate ignorance. As to your "historically validated" assertion, I'm not sure to what you refer. If you are claiming that ridicule defeats reson then you clearly are not using your own.

Reason is a blade, ridicule is a blunt instrument, one is lethal the other just gives you a sore head.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-14-2011, 23:20

Sometimes a small dose of ridicule can open peoples eyes better than a long dose of reasoning.

People usually have some structure to their belief that they are comfortable with, something needs to happen to shake their comfort.

Of course a bad attempt at reasoning is inoffensive and allows itself to be corrected easily, which is a huge difference compared to ridicule.

Nowake

11-14-2011, 23:52

no rebellion occured until 1415
No rebellion occurred until mere... weeks after the execution of Jan Huss.
Execution, by the by, which is the perfect case in point for the way religion decided to fight ridicule of say, its practice of selling Indulgences, with reason, which was the point I was making and which you've constantly chosen to misinterpret. Case in point illustrating your “Reason is the best weapon for fighting anything” principle of course; nothing more reasonable than burning someone for his arguments against your beliefs.
Oh and I bet no one can see how thirty years from Wycliff’s death is a number which totally disproves your assertion that “The military campaigns were extremely late in the day [during] the time of the thirty years war. The cat was so far out of the bag it had died of extreme old age, and so had all it kittens, after having huge families of their own.”

I don't like you because of the way you treat people you dissagree with and in particular your habit of denigrating your opponent's intellect, and integrity.
I’m sorry to have aroused such strong feelings, even more so considering their negativity. Honestly.
I can’t sincerely say I accept the accusations though. So, if you can’t get over it, lets just look past each other i.e. try to not engage my assertions anymore. I do not like to debate a point in which my interlocutor has a personal stake.
Having said that, eventhough you initiated this latest exchange, I’ll back off from continuing the particular chain of replies, as a courtesy. Thus go ahead and get your final word if you so wish and be done with it :yes:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

11-15-2011, 00:26

Thus go ahead and get your final word if you so wish and be done with it :yes:

My final word is this:

You are trying to get me to sacrifice the intellectual high ground by goading me to reply.

Sure, I'll do that for you. Feel better?

In answer to your question, yes burning people at the stake is completely reasonable, although most heretics were actually hung until the Renaissance. I have already explicitely stated that execution of heretics is entirely reasonable in the theological context of the time. You ignored me.

Also, it's Wyclif with one "F", not two. If you want to be anachronistic you could go with Wycliffe.

As to not answering points: Mine was that there were no wars to supress heresy until very late in the game, Hussite and Wycliffite revolts were not the same as the later religious wars, the most concerted of which was the Thirty Years War.

In any case, the heresy begins with Wyclif in England, not Huss, and I have never heard it argued that Oldcastle's rebellion was due to the Council of Constance, the Hussite Wars did not begin until four years after Huss' death, and by your own admission the Hussites sent a deputation to Constance to remonstate with the Council, not least because Huss had letters garenteeing his safe conduct to and from the Council (but not his safety at Constance).