View Full Version : France Shoot-Out
Rhyfelwyr
01-19-2015, 11:54
What is absolutely horrifying to see is the lengths to which people go to -- despite everything that has happened -- to still blame Charlie Hebdo for all this. It's the intellectual equivalent of saying "well when you wear skirts of that length, don't be surprised that you ended up raped". It's victim-blaming and it's horrific. To spin it into a pseudo-intellectual debate concerning the limitations of freedom of speech is pretty much just insulting.
Nobody has said that Charlie Hebdo deserved what happened to them, or that they should be blamed for the attack. Not one person in this thread has ever said that, despite some people accusing others of it often enough.
And it is you who is conflating things, by confusing A) morally blaming victims for what happens to them (as is implied in your mini-skirt example - the unacceptable attitude in the past being that women who dressed provocatively deserved what happened to them), and B) suggesting that people take basic precautions to avoid attracting unwanted criminal attention, without placing responsibility for crimes on the victim.
For example, if a person has been burgled twice in a month because they leave their door unlocked and the front windows open, a policeman might suggest that they start locking the door and closing the windows, without in any way excusing the burglars or laying ultimate blame at the victims feet.
Personally, I'm getting tired of the people that try to take some kind of moral "high road" when it comes to these events, because we're not on the same wavelength.
This is a debate about morality - you believe that it is morally wrong to deny free speech, do you not?
Self-censorship would mean that the terrorists won, to use an expression
Similarly, abandoning our traditional Western laws on offensive material purely as a knee-jerk reaction to the terrorists also means that the terrorists win. Just because they are at one extreme doesn't mean we have to be at the other.
I am with Hax. My own take, how can you expect any enlightement comming from muslims if political correctness will never alliow them to. Pretty unfair. Idiots will blame normal muslims for not speaking out (why should they really), and other idiots will keep relativating islam. Nice place to be if you only care about what's for dinner
Gilrandir
01-19-2015, 13:20
My own take, how can you expect any enlightement comming from muslims if political correctness will never alliow them to.
What Charlie Ebdo has been and is doing is anything but political correctness.
Nice place to be if you only care about what's for dinner
What else could be important in life?
(What's) for starters, what's for dessert.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-19-2015, 15:00
What else could be important in life?
The love growing from a committed relationship between equals....and perhaps a good chianti.
What Charlie Ebdo has been and is doing is anything but political correctness.
And I respect them because of that. I don't respect their new best friends.
“Can you admire his pictures?” Yes.
“Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills?” No.
“And who is to draw the line?” The law made by elected, representative Parliament, following a democratic constitution.
“Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.” Wrong. If a dead person was kill unlawfully, the person(s) who shoot will be prosecuted and put on trial. If not, the killing of the person was lawful, so the killed was guilty.
“thus a crime, racist remark is not.” Really? You don’t intent to be racist?
“If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.” Not really as Racists in France try (and mostly succeed) to hind it, as shown in the example of the mayor hiding his racism behind laicité. Le Pen family, especially the daughter is good at it as well.
“Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.”: That shows the immense stupidity of the ones doing it, not the newspaper fault. It is very easy to stop violence, when you are the ones launching it. You just stop.
“Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income”: Yeah, what piece of luck having their friends and collaborators killed…:dizzy2:
“if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery” More than Charlie Hedbo for having been killed by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics. CH shelled no cities, and killed no one.
“And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over” That why you will never be Charlie. Apologizing to the killers and the mob, bowing, grovelling to calm the barbarians (and this is an insult to barbarians to be compared to this lot)…
Hey, I’ve got an idea, why the 4 Jews’ families do not apologies to the Muslim mob as well? Well, without Jews, no antisemitism, so the Jews are guilty, no?
She is Charlie:
Latifa Ibn Ziaten is the mother of the Paratrooper Idris Ibn Ziaten, first victim of Mohamed Merah, coldly murdered aged 30 March 11, 2012 in Toulouse. Since then, Latifa Ibn Ziaten criss-crossed France, going to colleges and high schools, to advocate an islam of tolerance, say her attachment to the Republic and her pride for her son. Merah "killed him because he was military. He asked him to bow but my son remained standing. He had entered into the army to serve the Republic', she recently said.
a completely inoffensive name
01-20-2015, 01:49
The laws should consider A) the position of the person/institution and B) the public attitude towards them, as well as any sensitivities around customs, tradition etc.
Thinking about this for a while, what you said initially made no sense. But maybe this is a difference between how Americans and Britons (I don't actually know the plural for UK citizens, Britons seems too specific to Great Britain) view government positions. The position and the person holding that position are completely different entities (from my view). That's why I have no problem with anyone openly mocking the President, because they are mocking the person, not the individual. Are you coming from an approach that the Queen (aka the monarchy) and the woman who is called The Queen are effectively the same? Then I could understand your point about customs and sensitivity.
We'll probably get bogged down if we start debating particular examples. I just think it is wishful thinking to say that free speech is totally positive and that censorship can never have positive effects. Advocating for total free speech because you believe it is right in principle, and advocating for it because you believe that it is the best way to counter extreme/anti-social beliefs are two different positions, yet they often get blurred. I think many people who believe at heart in the former can sometimes lazily go along with the perceived wisdom of the latter, perhaps because of the human tendency towards idealism. I believe in free speech in principle, but I also think that censorship can be pretty effective in practice.
I can't disagree that censorship can be effective. But I really do disagree with the notion that censorship is effective towards moderating opinions in the public sphere. Censorship and the restriction of free speech is perfectly applicable and effective when regarding things like national security, when the flow of information needs to be restricted. However, I don't think you can say the same regarding the flow of opinions. I just think that you are conflating the two and that the limits on free speech need to be varied for the various types of speech there are.
Historically speaking at least, a desire for some forms of restriction have been held by the overwhelming majority. I think this still holds true today - finding a balance between majority wishes and individual rights is what liberal democracy is all about.
Historically speaking (until the mid-1800s), a desire for slavery has been held by the overwhelming majority. No, I am not being glib, I don't think we can use public opinion and masquerade it with the authority of history to give it credence. A liberal democracy is about majority wishes except when individual rights are infringed. There is no "balance" one is subservient to the other.
I would hardly say that censoring extreme or offensive material has anything to do with asking people not to by human. They can think and feel what they like, while occasionally behind restricted in their outward actions - that is part and parcel of living in human society!
Humans like sex, humans like violence, humans like to insult those they disagree with. Trying to eliminate representations of these things in society seems to be asking people to pretend as if we are not human. I find it part and parcel of living in human society to hear the neighbors in the apt next to me having loud sex. That's what humans do.
That depends on whether or not it would have an overall positive effect. I don't view the right to vote as some sort of natural right, I just see it as a generally nice thing to have and something that allows for good governance. If there were circumstances when it would be detrimental to society, then away with it!
But that is clearly immoral. I didn't peg you for a utilitarian Rhy. You are so cavalier about rights which people to this day suffer because the lack the ability to exercise it. This argument is the justification of so much oppression. Can't give women the vote, we would start to have politicians elected based on hormones!
Let society come to an consensus about what is acceptable. If they cannot, they must reach an agreement as best they can, and obey the law that upholds it. I know that a lot of things that pass for acceptable today would never have been tolerated by many of your founding fathers. They were a diverse bunch and upheld arrangements that you would think are incredibly oppressive - eg a number of state-level established churches, and the censorship and discrimination that went along with that. Yet it was deemed constitutional at the time.
Yes, but we nowadays consider that an error on their part, not simply justification that human rights are frivolous things.
That's why I have no problem with anyone openly mocking the President, because they are mocking the person, not the individual. Are you coming from an approach that the Queen (aka the monarchy) and the woman who is called The Queen are effectively the same? Then I could understand your point about customs and sensitivity.
Isn't every person an individual? Or did you mean to say position/office for either of those?
I often read how it's okay to criticize Obama as a person as long as one respects the office of the president or something like that.
But going even deeper with such distinctions would seem strange.
“Can you admire his pictures?” Yes.
“Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills?” No.
“And who is to draw the line?” The law made by elected, representative Parliament, following a democratic constitution.
“Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.” Wrong. If a dead person was kill unlawfully, the person(s) who shoot will be prosecuted and put on trial. If not, the killing of the person was lawful, so the killed was guilty.
“thus a crime, racist remark is not.” Really? You don’t intent to be racist?
“If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.” Not really as Racists in France try (and mostly succeed) to hind it, as shown in the example of the mayor hiding his racism behind laicité. Le Pen family, especially the daughter is good at it as well.
“Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.”: That shows the immense stupidity of the ones doing it, not the newspaper fault. It is very easy to stop violence, when you are the ones launching it. You just stop.
“Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income”: Yeah, what piece of luck having their friends and collaborators killed…:dizzy2:
“if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery” More than Charlie Hedbo for having been killed by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics. CH shelled no cities, and killed no one.
“And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over” That why you will never be Charlie. Apologizing to the killers and the mob, bowing, grovelling to calm the barbarians (and this is an insult to barbarians to be compared to this lot)…
Hey, I’ve got an idea, why the 4 Jews’ families do not apologies to the Muslim mob as well? Well, without Jews, no antisemitism, so the Jews are guilty, no?
She is Charlie:
Latifa Ibn Ziaten is the mother of the Paratrooper Idris Ibn Ziaten, first victim of Mohamed Merah, coldly murdered aged 30 March 11, 2012 in Toulouse. Since then, Latifa Ibn Ziaten criss-crossed France, going to colleges and high schools, to advocate an islam of tolerance, say her attachment to the Republic and her pride for her son. Merah "killed him because he was military. He asked him to bow but my son remained standing. He had entered into the army to serve the Republic', she recently said.
I like the way you think. Je suis Charlie? No your not. Neither am I. It disgusts me how people are hijacking this nasty affair.
a completely inoffensive name
01-20-2015, 12:52
Isn't every person an individual? Or did you mean to say position/office for either of those?
I often read how it's okay to criticize Obama as a person as long as one respects the office of the president or something like that.
But going even deeper with such distinctions would seem strange.
Yeah I meant to say position not individual. Sometimes in the middle of writing x or y I will type x and then think I just typed y, so then I type x again.
For consideration, not the best of translation but I'll try. 'You are importing the worst we have to offer, I am saving to go back to Marroco, everything I left Marroco for I have to look at here'
ouch.
Gilrandir
01-20-2015, 15:05
“Can you admire his pictures?” Yes.
“Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills?” No.
So I see that you took upon himself the right to decide what others can or can't like and do. In what way is it better than censorship?
“And who is to draw the line?” The law made by elected, representative Parliament, following a democratic constitution.
I would like you to state the law which says that you can name a drawing school after Hitler (because you admire him as a painter) or a vegetarian club after him (for the well-known reasons), but you can't call a think tank after Goebbels.
“Thus, if a dead person can't be put on trial, he is equally can't be declared guilty or not guilty. Still less by you.” Wrong. If a dead person was kill unlawfully, the person(s) who shoot will be prosecuted and put on trial. If not, the killing of the person was lawful, so the killed was guilty.
Sometimes a person who shot someone is prosecuted and put on trial but found not guilty (the recent case in the USA when a policeman shot a black guy). Does it mean that the killing was lawful? And vice versa, sometimes a person who killed another is never prosecuted and put on trial. Does it mean that the killed was guilty?
“thus a crime, racist remark is not.” Really? You don’t intent to be racist?
Rasicm (as a worldview) is not a crime. It is if you DO something being guided by this worldview it turns into an aggravating circumstance to the crime.
“If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.” Not really as Racists in France try (and mostly succeed) to hind it, as shown in the example of the mayor hiding his racism behind laicité. Le Pen family, especially the daughter is good at it as well.
If you brought up the family: if any of them said what the characters in CH's pictures say (or pictures themselves are meant to say), would you not brand them (again) as bigots, racists and nazis? If you do, I start smelling a faint odor of hypocrisy.
“Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.”: That shows the immense stupidity of the ones doing it, not the newspaper fault. It is very easy to stop violence, when you are the ones launching it. You just stop.
You again fail to see that the violence was not unprovoked. So it is very easy to stop insulting others when you provoke them into violence. You just stop.
“Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income”: Yeah, what piece of luck having their friends and collaborators killed…:dizzy2:
Yet they utilized the situation to the full extent and harvested all they could.
“if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery” More than Charlie Hedbo for having been killed by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics. CH shelled no cities, and killed no one.
Putin annexed the Crimea before Ukraine ever fired a shot. Sanctions had the annexation as a cause.
“And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over” That why you will never be Charlie. Apologizing to the killers and the mob, bowing, grovelling to calm the barbarians (and this is an insult to barbarians to be compared to this lot)…
Now these are barbarians and those in Eastern Ukraine are oppressed minorities with a valid reason to feel insecure and threatened. Yet both behave similarly. Now it reeks of hypocrisy.
As for apologizing, you distort what I said. As usual. I said of apologizing to the Muslims who were insulted. I am sure there are many more of them than those barbarians.
Censorship and the restriction of free speech is perfectly applicable and effective when regarding things like national security, when the flow of information needs to be restricted.
Don't you think that when your establishments in other countries are under attack (like in Niger) it IS a national security issue? When the police in other countries (Belgium, Germany, Australia) "is activated into stanby mode" it IS a national (or in this case international) security issue?
Why wouldn't you be able to name a school after Hitler. It's just satire, go ahead. Monty Python's best sketches involve Hitler. You can also just not be offended. What's it to you really, is there anything to be found that should really offend you. Mock the holocaust for all I care. Possibly offensive but I don't care, being offenced is just a choice.
You are not entitled for a life where you aren't mocked. Deal with it, you will have to deal with it anyway.
Gilrandir
01-20-2015, 16:14
Why wouldn't you be able to name a school after Hitler. It's just satire, go ahead. Monty Python's best sketches involve Hitler. You can also just not be offended. What's it to you really, is there anything to be found that should really offend you. Mock the holocaust for all I care. Possibly offensive but I don't care, being offenced is just a choice.
You are not entitled for a life where you aren't mocked. Deal with it, you will have to deal with it anyway.
Every mocking should have a limit which I term "the frontier of decency". If you choose to cross it (that is if you stop being decent) be ready for a feedback. Sometimes it may be violent, other times not, yet you should realize both chances and take precautions against the former. In my view the best precaution is to stay decent.
rory_20_uk
01-20-2015, 16:33
Every mocking should have a limit which I term "the frontier of decency". If you choose to cross it (that is if you stop being decent) be ready for a feedback. Sometimes it may be violent, other times not, yet you should realize both chances and take precautions against the former. In my view the best precaution is to stay decent.
Decent is a cultural line - and hence we have problems in countries that try to be multicultural rather than a dominant culture with tolerance of others.
~:smoking:
Just like one shouldn't encroach on what the Russian Federation views as its general sphere of influence, basic decency dictates this.
Having a violent Nazi mob dislodge the elected Russian puppet can therefore be expected to meet a violent response, right?
Gilrandir
01-20-2015, 17:51
Decent is a cultural line - and hence we have problems in countries that try to be multicultural rather than a dominant culture with tolerance of others.
~:smoking:
As I have argued, multicultural societies (wherever there is a dominant culture or not) are well aware of decency frontiers and normally don't cross them.
Just like one shouldn't encroach on what the Russian Federation views as its general sphere of influence, basic decency dictates this.
Decency, as Rory remarked, is a cultural (or rather moral) concept. It has nothing to do with political doctrine of a country.
Having a violent Nazi mob dislodge the elected Russian puppet can therefore be expected to meet a violent response, right?
This is a gross simplification of what has happened in Ukraine, but you start taunting me with what has been chewed for a year now. A response may be justified if it comes from within the country not headed by armed GRU officers (as Strelkov admitted).
Every mocking should have a limit which I term "the frontier of decency". If you choose to cross it (that is if you stop being decent) be ready for a feedback. Sometimes it may be violent, other times not, yet you should realize both chances and take precautions against the former. In my view the best precaution is to stay decent.
The frontier of decency is not killing anyone. Getting rediculised is a courtusy reallly as it assumes you don't take offence. Satire doesn't hurt even if it stings a bit, by all means go in with a stretched leg, you only look like an idiot if you agree you do.
rory_20_uk
01-20-2015, 18:34
As I have argued, multicultural societies (wherever there is a dominant culture or not) are well aware of decency frontiers and normally don't cross them.
OK quick example - the campaign to ban page 3 from the Sun newspaper has been celebrating its success... in enforcing their view on everyone else and hence is censorship. The women were all over 18, chose to do it and some even view it as an act of feminism. Their argument is a step towards stopping women bieng viewed as objects... oddly enough no moves against make up / wonderbra / shampoo adverts though...
So, good news or bad news? Frankly I couldn't care less.
~:smoking:
“So I see that you took upon himself the right to decide what others can or can't like and do. In what way is it better than censorship?” :laugh4: you ask me a question, I answer, and you are in the war path…
“I would like you to state the law which says that you can name a drawing school after Hitler (because you admire him as a painter) or a vegetarian club after him (for the well-known reasons), but you can't call a think tank after Goebbels.” Err? First I do not like Hitler paintings, too shallow, and what are you talking about? Who spoke about a drawing school named Hitler? You are not making sense.
“Does it mean that the killed was guilty?” Yeah, exactly this. And that is why the Black “community” in the US is so up-set, because it is exactly that.
“CH's pictures say” What the drawings said? Do you really know? I am telling you: they were/are against racism, death penalty, bigotry and dictatorship, even religious one. So if the Le Pen family would say the same things, I would agree with them. But they don’t and that why CH crew was atheist, humanists and anarchists, when the Le Pen family are not. Your antagonism against me (and I fully understand it) drives you on an unknown and mined field. As you, “I start smelling a faint odor of hypocrisy.”
“You again fail to see that the violence was not unprovoked.” The violence was unprovoked by CH. Perhaps you missed the point, but the attack was done on the name of pictures published several years ago. The violence is provoked only and uniquely by the obscurantist Muslim religious mob and the Capo di capo. The obscurantist Muslims religious fanatics choose to be offended (or faint to) in order to gain political points in their fight for supremacy on the Muslim population. And when you don’t obey, they kill you.
“Yet they utilized the situation to the full extent and harvested all they could.” You are under any qualification… I self-censure: "well aware of decency frontiers and normally don't cross them." Obviously, you are not.
“Now these are barbarians and those in Eastern Ukraine are oppressed minorities with a valid reason to feel insecure and threatened” What is the threat on Islam by CH, exactly? Well, except telling them the reality of the Holly Texts, and destabilising the faith of few of them? As Ukraine is concern, I provided all the answer you need in another debate, so, I will refer you to them.
Gilrandir
01-21-2015, 08:26
OK quick example - the campaign to ban page 3 from the Sun newspaper has been celebrating its success... in enforcing their view on everyone else and hence is censorship. The women were all over 18, chose to do it and some even view it as an act of feminism. Their argument is a step towards stopping women bieng viewed as objects... oddly enough no moves against make up / wonderbra / shampoo adverts though...
So, good news or bad news? Frankly I couldn't care less.
~:smoking:
I think this is a misplaced example. It has nothing to do with groups in a multicultural society and their awareness of each others' sensitive issues.
“I would like you to state the law which says that you can name a drawing school after Hitler (because you admire him as a painter) or a vegetarian club after him (for the well-known reasons), but you can't call a think tank after Goebbels.” Err? First I do not like Hitler paintings, too shallow, and what are you talking about? Who spoke about a drawing school named Hitler? You are not making sense.
You said one can admire some features of universally recognized villains. One of such features (or rather abilities) is Hitler's (dubious) talent of a painter. So if I admire this very aspect of his, can I call a painting school after him without you rushing to attack me with your hackles up?
“CH's pictures say” What the drawings said? Do you really know? I am telling you: they were/are against racism, death penalty, bigotry and dictatorship, even religious one.
Well, I like it. You are telling me something which is reason enough to agree. You are interpreting CH's policy according to YOUR understanding of it. Many Muslims all over the world don't see it that way. Perhaps the reason why France is having these problems is inabilty to see the situation with different eyes, to place oneself in another's shoes.
Your antagonism against me (and I fully understand it) drives you on an unknown and mined field.
Again you fail to see what causes "this antagonism". It is your inconsistency (if you don't like the word "hypocrisy") in similar cases - people being dissatisfied with cultural/spiritual issues.
“You again fail to see that the violence was not unprovoked.” The violence was unprovoked by CH. Perhaps you missed the point, but the attack was done on the name of pictures published several years ago.
So since then CH has stopped publishing pictures of this kind? I think they have pursued their policy through many years. And their latest issue bears me out.
The violence is provoked only and uniquely by the obscurantist Muslim religious mob and the Capo di capo. The obscurantist Muslims religious fanatics choose to be offended (or faint to) in order to gain political points in their fight for supremacy on the Muslim population. And when you don’t obey, they kill you.
You somehow didn't buy it when I said that turmoils in Ukraine are provoked only and uniquely by Russia. Replace "Muslims blah-blah-blah" in this post by "Russians" and you will have my description of what has happened and is happening in Eastern Ukraine.
“Now these are barbarians and those in Eastern Ukraine are oppressed minorities with a valid reason to feel insecure and threatened” What is the threat on Islam by CH, exactly?
It isn't. In this case it was other feelings that were evoked - humiliation and annoyance. Yet in both cases (Ukraine and France) it ended in violence.
Meanwhile, there APPEARS some evidence which reveals that Russia isn't wholly unconnected to CH episode.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/france-five-russian-chechens-arrested-suspicion-plotting-terror-attack-1484291
rory_20_uk
01-21-2015, 11:28
I think this is a misplaced example. It has nothing to do with groups in a multicultural society and their awareness of each others' sensitive issues.
Headscarves and cartoons in France would come high on the list.
The whole "Trojan horse" school governors thing in the UK would be another example.
Female Genital Mutilation a third.
Forced marriages.
Honour killings - we tend to think it is a bad thing in the West.
~:smoking:
Greyblades
01-21-2015, 18:45
If ever there was a time for a martin luther style reformation of the islamic faith, it's now.
“You are interpreting CH's policy according to YOUR understanding of it. Many Muslims all over the world don't see it that way.” Nope. The racism you claim CH displayed is inexistent. By the way, CH was in Court for Racism by various Religious Groups, and all claims dismissed. Le Pen family as well lost all their cases against the newspaper.
So obviously, you didn’t look at their drawings: It seems you are like a colour blind person trying to describe a rainbow.
Their atheism is clear and limpid. To draw a picture of someone else prophet is not racism, it is anti-clericalism or anti-religions. Not to obey someone else rules is part of freedom and in the frame of the law is a right we gain by fights. The many Muslims you refer to have nothing to say about what is allowed or not by the French Laws. I don’t see why these fanatic religious obscurantists would have a word to say about what we can say or draw.
The racists are the ones claiming for exception.
“So since then CH has stopped publishing pictures of this kind?” Never, but that was not why the Muslim fanatics scum bags claim they did the slaughter for. By the way, CH did the same with all religions and political parties.
“It is your inconsistency”: words words words.
“You somehow didn't buy it when I said that turmoils in Ukraine are provoked only and uniquely by Russia.” Different scenario indeed. The newspaper attacked or killed, or stormed no one, as mentioned in another intervention.
Nice try to switch France with CH. Try again
And the Chechen, according to French media, just ordinary bank robbers, apparently... But well try. And since when Chechen Islamists are allied with Russia?
Seamus Fermanagh
01-21-2015, 22:34
If ever there was a time for a martin luther style reformation of the islamic faith, it's now.
Different dynamic. Islam is not really a hierarchic "catholic" church. It is already divided into sects as is Christianity.
They probably ARE in need of someone who wishes to reform them a bit, I cannot disagree with that part of your statement at all.
Would they hold a "Congress of the faith" and create a negotiated "Caliph of the faithful" then we might see a reformer chosen to bring their traditions together in the spirit of a people of "service."
Currently, those offering themselves up as Caliph seem to be of a more of the Arnaud Amalric style of spreading the faith. Not at all a good thing.
If ever there was a time for a martin luther style reformation of the islamic faith, it's now.
Because that went totally fine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War).
What you're seeing in Syria/Iraq right now is your reformation.
Greyblades
01-22-2015, 00:02
Different dynamic. Islam is not really a hierarchic "catholic" church. It is already divided into sects as is Christianity. True, but christianity wasnt exactly unified either, what with the great schism and all. Plus I couldnt think of any other event that so forced a major religion into reforming to survive in a new era that could apply to islam.
Because that went totally fine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War).
What you're seeing in Syria/Iraq right now is your reformation.
Yes, I am quite aware of the results of the reformation, thank you.
They are and are going to continue killing eachother anyway, it's quite likely they will lose thier taste for inter-faith warfare the way christians did, might as well hope they gain a modernisation of thier outdated practices while they're at it.
Yes, I am quite aware of the results of the reformation, thank you.
Hey, no problem!
They are and are going to continue killing eachother anyway, it's quite likely they will lose thier taste for inter-faith warfare the way christians did, might as well hope they gain a modernisation of thier outdated practices while they're at it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJRvd9JAgTM
Greyblades
01-22-2015, 00:57
Huh, I could have sworn that the idea was to keep the arabs killing eachother while we make off with the oil.
Someone had better tell the the rest of the org because we've been under the impression that all the factions who could reform islam for the better have given up or died for a good 3 years now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-22-2015, 03:24
Different dynamic. Islam is not really a hierarchic "catholic" church. It is already divided into sects as is Christianity.
They probably ARE in need of someone who wishes to reform them a bit, I cannot disagree with that part of your statement at all.
Would they hold a "Congress of the faith" and create a negotiated "Caliph of the faithful" then we might see a reformer chosen to bring their traditions together in the spirit of a people of "service."
Currently, those offering themselves up as Caliph seem to be of a more of the Arnaud Amalric style of spreading the faith. Not at all a good thing.
Only in the last twenty years has the schism caused by the Council of Chalcedon sixteen centuries ago finally been healed. That argument was literally older than Islam.
In any case, the Reformation only took root in North Western Europe and it was primarily the result of a failure of dialogue within the Church that itself had been through several internal reformations in the past. Which is to say, "The Reformation" is not really the name we give to the intellectual movement for reform, but to the bloody centuries of violence and persecution that resulted from it.
Anyway, Islam has already been through multiple reformation movements, the last few have mostly involved rejection of classical philosophy in favour of the Koran and revelation - so like the Protestants, really.
Bloody cursed Protestants.
"Bloody cursed Protestants." This is an highly offensive opinion. If some come to kill you for your offense, you will be guilty of offending them. Be prepared!!!!!:yes:
Gilrandir
01-22-2015, 10:58
“You are interpreting CH's policy according to YOUR understanding of it. Many Muslims all over the world don't see it that way.” Nope. The racism you claim CH displayed is inexistent.
I didn't claim anything. But the problem with your bias lingers: it's not important what I or other people in the backroom claim. What matters is what Muslims all over the world think. Obviously, they see it not the way you do. And that's what counts.
So obviously, you didn’t look at their drawings: It seems you are like a colour blind person trying to describe a rainbow.
I can't claim to have followed the career of CH closely, yet I have seen some pictures of theirs. But again, MY opinion is the least to count with, because (read half a dozen lines above).
Their atheism is clear and limpid. To draw a picture of someone else prophet is not racism, it is anti-clericalism or anti-religions.
You can be atheist all right. Only there is no need to insult others if they are not. The chief tenet of atheism I offered (and you agreed with) should be "be nice to everyone irrespective of what they believe (don't believe) into". CH was anything but nice.
Not to obey someone else rules is part of freedom and in the frame of the law is a right we gain by fights.
:no: This one is a motto to remember since it can be a universal answer to all your negative comments about Ukraine and about the scum bags you referred to. They chose not to obey... (see two lines above).
“You somehow didn't buy it when I said that turmoils in Ukraine are provoked only and uniquely by Russia.” Different scenario indeed. The newspaper attacked or killed, or stormed no one, as mentioned in another intervention.
Nice try to switch France with CH.
Yet the whole of France (and half of Europe) is buzzing with excitement and counter-terrorist measures are being introduced. Surely, France is not in the least affected by CH pranks. The common thing in both cases was the hurt feelings that caused the turmoils.
And the Chechen, according to French media, just ordinary bank robbers, apparently...
You were the one to call me not to trust media with their agenda and intent to manipulate. Follow your advice.
Only in the last twenty years has the schism caused by the Council of Chalcedon sixteen centuries ago finally been healed.
Yet it didn't bring all western christians under one governance.
rickinator9
01-23-2015, 00:21
You can be atheist all right. Only there is no need to insult others if they are not. The chief tenet of atheism I offered (and you agreed with) should be "be nice to everyone irrespective of what they believe (don't believe) into". CH was anything but nice.
The chief tenet of Atheism is the belief that there is no god, not that you should be nice to people regardless of their beliefs. Of course being kind is an important character trait but I wouldn't say it is the most important issue in Atheism itself, just as kindness isn't the most important issue for Theists.
Charlie Hebdo doesn't need to be nice. It is a satirical magazine. It ridicules to improve society. While people in this case have died in the process of improving society, I think Europe as a whole will benefit from this attack since more and more people get to know the true evil that is Islam.
more people get to know the true evil that is Islam.
Hi, I don't really know you -- but this statement seems to be pretty insane.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-23-2015, 02:16
The chief tenet of Atheism is the belief that there is no god, not that you should be nice to people regardless of their beliefs. Of course being kind is an important character trait but I wouldn't say it is the most important issue in Atheism itself, just as kindness isn't the most important issue for Theists.
Charlie Hebdo doesn't need to be nice. It is a satirical magazine. It ridicules to improve society. While people in this case have died in the process of improving society, I think Europe as a whole will benefit from this attack since more and more people get to know the true evil that is Islam.
Charlie Hebdo are not responsible for what happened, on the other hand, the first cover they printer after the attack was offensive to all Muslims.
That's not satire, it's crass.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-23-2015, 02:19
Hi, I don't really know you -- but this statement seems to be pretty insane.
He's pretty unpleasant.
Gilrandir
01-23-2015, 07:42
The chief tenet of Atheism is the belief that there is no god, not that you should be nice to people regardless of their beliefs.
You didn't read carefully my message. I said that being nice is the chief tenet that I offered and Brenus seconded.
Charlie Hebdo doesn't need to be nice. It is a satirical magazine. It ridicules to improve society.
If it sees insulting others as improvement, well, it shouldn't complain of repercussions. Certain elements of the society may see elimination of CH as an improvement.
Charlie Hebdo are not responsible for what happened, on the other hand, the first cover they printer after the attack was offensive to all Muslims.
That's not satire, it's crass.
No, it's the best reply they could have made. Muslims wil just have to get used to their religion not being sacred here. You have no right to not be offended.
rickinator9
01-23-2015, 18:43
Hi, I don't really know you -- but this statement seems to be pretty insane.
I might be insane, but here I am just stating my opinion. Any religion that promotes violence or has hateful texts in its scripture is evil in my eyes.
Hi, I don't really know you -- but this statement seems to be pretty insane.
Rick is a pretty cool guy.
Not sure where his recent views came from though, because calling a few crazies as being typical of Islam is like saying those who strongly oppose Islam are wannabe Anders Breiviks.
I might be insane, but here I am just stating my opinion.
Well, okay -- but your opinion is incredibly misinformed. That's my opinion.
Any religion that promotes violence or has hateful texts in its scripture is evil in my eyes.
Right, and who made you an expert on Islam?
“That's not satire, it's crass.” What? “All is forgiven”? That was the first title… Is it offensive?
14863
Or this one:
14864
It says: For a dying magazine printing 30,000 before to now the biggest selling one. Who's the genius who had this idea?
Yeap, very offensive indeed
rickinator9
01-23-2015, 23:03
Rick is a pretty cool guy.
Not sure where his recent views came from though, because calling a few crazies as being typical of Islam is like saying those who strongly oppose Islam are wannabe Anders Breiviks.
I have been critical of Islam for a few years now, but now that I have been gaming less I have had more time to think about politics and the like. You would be a fool to not see that there are problems with our new 'countrymen': a large percentage is them has antisemitic views, they form cultural and religious enclaves where they barely ever speak to a Dutch person, a large amount of crime from these people. What frustrates me most of all is that most politicians don't recognize these problems. Only one major party does really.
Well, okay -- but your opinion is incredibly misinformed. That's my opinion.
Right, and who made you an expert on Islam?
You don't need to have expert knowledge to make conclusions. What makes you an expert on Islam?
Seamus Fermanagh
01-23-2015, 23:26
The problem with painting all of Islam with the "evil" brush is that it is a sweeping generalization. Westboro Baptist is a collection of nimrods, but they are not representative of all Baptists, etc.
The problem with painting all of Islam with the "evil" brush is that it is a sweeping generalization. Westboro Baptist is a collection of nimrods, but they are not representative of all Baptists, etc.
A muslim is just someone who is born muslim. Doesn't mean he submits. Is islam evil, I don't know it has values of it's own, these values are not compatible with our values though.
You don't need to have expert knowledge to make conclusions.
Well newsflash: your conclusions are wrong:D
What makes you an expert on Islam?
Hmm, growing up with a Muslim father; knowing at least something about Islamic theology; studying Arabic and Persian for four years in Leiden and Paris. Far from an expert still, but I think maybe slightly more qualified.
I have been critical of Islam for a few years now, but now that I have been gaming less I have had more time to think about politics and the like. You would be a fool to not see that there are problems with our new 'countrymen':
Wait, you mean to say that social problems might arise as a consequence of mass immigration and ghettofication. No way /s
But seriously -- blaming Islam for problems associated with immigrants from third world countries is like blaming Roman Catholicism for tensions in early 20th century America with regards to the Irish and Italians, f.ex. Correlation still does not equal causation. Pick up a book.
A muslim is just someone who is born muslim.
al-hamdu li-llah yâ akhî Fragon. Did you convert to Islam, because this is seriously an Islamic point of view.
So what if it resonates, is there point in it
Gilrandir
01-24-2015, 15:48
Any religion that promotes violence or has hateful texts in its scripture is evil in my eyes.
Read the Bible carefully. It is brimming over with violence.
“That's not satire, it's crass.” What? “All is forgiven”? That was the first title… Is it offensive?
Yeap, very offensive indeed
Once again: it is not offensive FOR YOU. You don't know much how Muslims feel. Or you do now if you follow the news from muslim countries.
You don't know much how Muslims feel
Well, neither do you.
Gilrandir
01-24-2015, 16:25
Well, neither do you.
I don't know, but I don't pretend to. I don't repeat like an incantation "there is nothing to feel offended at". But what I do know is the fact that millions of Muslims all over the world don't think there is nothing to be offended at.
The problem is that "being offended" means nothing. I feel offended when people tell me I should convert to Islam because that's what my father wants (this has happened on several occasions), but it doesn't justify me responding violently.
EDIT: I also feel offended when people burn French flags, f.ex.
Gilrandir
01-24-2015, 18:19
The problem is that "being offended" means nothing. I feel offended when people tell me I should convert to Islam because that's what my father wants (this has happened on several occasions), but it doesn't justify me responding violently.
EDIT: I also feel offended when people burn French flags, f.ex.
Some people prone to violence may start doing something when they are offended strong enough to start that violence. But when one has been dealing with such easily offended and easily stirred to violence people (and one knows that) he is either to stop what they see as offence or take precautions.
"You don't know much how Muslims feel." To be honest, I don't care. They burn, kill, and they are the ones who are offended. And, no, these are not the Muslims. These are fanatics, obscurantist Muslim religiously driven thugs.
They are offended by a picture, a drawing they NEVER see or even understand. Do you really understand this? They choose to be offended, because their commanders of Faith told them to be, then they kill.
They burned the Churches because the Mobsters told them to do so, to protect their territories, their part of market.
By the way, where are the millions of Muslims do this? Watch BBC this morning and nothing about it. Some extreme-right newspapers are claiming this kind of figures, but I saw nothing in the main stream of news/media. Figures are closer to pair of thousands then millions.
classical_hero
01-24-2015, 18:38
Read the Bible carefully. It is brimming over with violence.
So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?
Gilrandir
01-24-2015, 18:39
"You don't know much how Muslims feel." To be honest, I don't care. They burn, kill, and they are the ones who are offended. And, no, these are not the Muslims. These are fanatics, obscurantist Muslim religiously driven thugs.
If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.
Gilrandir
01-24-2015, 18:42
So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?
It is not about attacking and responding, it is about bloody sacrifices, fratricidal struggle, oppression, eye for eye and what not. Violence of different kinds drips from the pages of the book.
So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?
Like, if you consider it to be a story with a certain moral that takes place in a historical situation and thus has no bearing on how to solve conflicts in modern-day society, then there's no problem.
If you take it in the sense that the Ancient Israelites being forced to defend themselves equals we are allowed to defend ourselves in the same way, then that's a problem.
“If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.” :laugh4:, I don’t deny they felt (think would give them too much credit) that they have a reason to be offended. Imaginary one, but then, who I am to judge? However, if they have the right to be offended (hurt) in their feelings then THEIR answer (to kill, burn and pillage) is THEIR responsibility.
And some here think they have some justification in doing so. They murdered people, they made this choice. One again, CH (or others) have no reason(s) to bow to others demands of, how can I qualify this, respectability, un-touchability of their feelings.
To see women in bikini offends them as well, in fact to see women offends them, so do we have to lock our women at home, to ban them from workplace, hey, why not to put a police checking if we can see one of their hairs about of the burkhas that women will have to wear in order not to offend the feelings of this bench of obscurantist lunatics? And will you come with the answer that women killed (stoned to death) because they show an ankle to these thugs should have seen happening, so they should have not left home…
Ironside
01-25-2015, 10:16
So when the ancient Israelites were attacked, they can't respond?
"We conquered the entire region that God declared ours, killing everyone and stopping only because that enemy was much better fortified."
Totally a defensive move. :rolleyes:
"Totally a defensive move" Preemptive strikes... I like the "killing everyone"... "American sniper" before time... Well, somehow, David and his sling...:creep:
Totally more then 2000 years old
Gilrandir
01-25-2015, 12:33
“If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.” :laugh4:, I don’t deny they felt (think would give them too much credit) that they have a reason to be offended. Imaginary one, but then, who I am to judge? However, if they have the right to be offended (hurt) in their feelings then THEIR answer (to kill, burn and pillage) is THEIR responsibility.
And some here think they have some justification in doing so. They murdered people, they made this choice. One again, CH (or others) have no reason(s) to bow to others demands of, how can I qualify this, respectability, un-touchability of their feelings.
I don't justify anything they did. I just want you to see that CH's line of behavior wasn't prudent. If one chooses to pursue such a line, well, have your premises armored and secure against any contingency.
To see women in bikini offends them as well, in fact to see women offends them, so do we have to lock our women at home, to ban them from workplace, hey, why not to put a police checking if we can see one of their hairs about of the burkhas that women will have to wear in order not to offend the feelings of this bench of obscurantist lunatics?
These are our women (as you put that), so they have no right to impose their values upon them. In case of CH, it was their value domain that was under attack.
"We conquered the entire region that God declared ours, killing everyone and stopping only because that enemy was much better fortified."
What was that which you quoted? Russian current military doctrine?
Seamus Fermanagh
01-25-2015, 15:39
I...What was that which you quoted? Russian current military doctrine?
This is the normal condition of warfare. In our comfortable legalist and 'restrained' cultures we tend to forget that warfare boils down to:
Win.
Kill all of the enemy physically able to return to the fight.
Take all of their stuff.
Kill the elderly as a waste.
Take the children for your own property/Put babies into the women of the conquered.
Moreover, logically, this works better if you can get the drop on anyone around you so that they cannot do it to you first.
Any warfare that does not drop to this level is being attenuated by culture/ethics/etc.
"These are our women (as you put that), so they have no right to impose their values upon them. In case of CH, it was their value domain that was under attack."
What was the "value" under attack? The only think is the Koran allegedly forbid is to represent the Prophet. That is not a value. It is a "blaspheme" under Islamic Laws. Their demand is we have to "respect" Islam in, well, following the rules of Islam (the ones they said are the right ones).
So, if I understand your view: They have the right to impose their view on our publications/cartoons, but they can't on how we live our lives. Err, that is the same things... What about a fashion magazine with bikini? In which category do you class it? Their values, if you want to put it like this are under attack in both cases. What about eating porc and drinking alcohol during Ramadan (or just eating)? That as well may hurt their feelings...
And it was ME whom you accused of inconsistency!!!!
They will always find a reason to be offended so why bother with sensivitoes. You just can not step on their toes, they have surface to sole toes. Whatever you do, whatever concession you make, it will just be never enough to these idiots. So youbmight as well start with don't making any at all.
Respect for their feelings, screw that.
Gilrandir
01-26-2015, 08:01
What was the "value" under attack? The only think is the Koran allegedly forbid is to represent the Prophet. That is not a value. It is a "blaspheme" under Islamic Laws. Their demand is we have to "respect" Islam in, well, following the rules of Islam (the ones they said are the right ones).
For one so well versed in Islamic Laws it is strange to be ignorant of their values which are the backbone of any laws including islamic (though I don't understand how you can speak of religious laws - law belongs to the state not faith; in religion they have commandments, rites, perhaps rules, but not laws).
But again, your failure to see that other people may be insulted by what YOU think insignificant and not valuable (and you try to make us and them agree to your point of view) and recognizing the right of people in Donbas to be dissatisfied with what YOU think important exposes the inconsistency I spoke about.
So, if I understand your view: They have the right to impose their view on our publications/cartoons, but they can't on how we live our lives. Err, that is the same things... What about a fashion magazine with bikini? In which category do you class it? Their values, if you want to put it like this are under attack in both cases. What about eating porc and drinking alcohol during Ramadan (or just eating)? That as well may hurt their feelings...
Value systems (as many other abstract things) are categories. Wittgenstein understands the latter as notions consisting of the core (nucleus) and periphery. The core is the easiest to recognize, the deepest entrenched and the quickest to come to mind when you mention the whole category. The less a member of the category resembles the nucleus (aka prototype) the farther it is situated from it. At the margins the category has fuzzy ends which may with overlap other categories. Now back to the subject.
Has anyone started shooting others because of bikinis and pork? No? So definitely these are peripheral values, or rather rules of behavior. Evidently Muslims are tolerant enough to this. What CH did (and keeps doing) some of them thought to be endangering their core values.
As for my take on the whole situation, it was explicated more than once, yet for you I may repeat it once (just once, mind you) more:
Try not to insult the feelings of others as much as you can help. If you can't and know that you may get hurt, take precautions.
They will always find a reason to be offended so why bother with sensivitoes. You just can not step on their toes, they have surface to sole toes. Whatever you do, whatever concession you make, it will just be never enough to these idiots. So youbmight as well start with don't making any at all.
Respect for their feelings, screw that.
Can we apply this message to, say, feminists, blacks, Russians, your neighbor next door? "Screw your feelings" sounds like a good reason for anyone to start getting angry.
As long as I don't have change my ways I can live with all of them
“For one so well versed in Islamic Laws it is strange to be ignorant of their values which are the backbone of any laws including islamic (though I don't understand how you can speak of religious laws - law belongs to the state not faith; in religion they have commandments, rites, perhaps rules, but not laws).” A lot of words to hind the fact you don’t answer the question, once again.
I know some values of the Koran: Basic inequalities between religions, basic inequalities between gender, expansionism, killings pagans, homosexuals and apostates.
Note that most religions have the same “values”
If these are the values you want us to respect, these values being against my values, they can carry-on to have tantrum and feelings hurts.
As my knowledge of the “Islamic” Laws, I never claim to have an extensive one but nice try of a Stalinist type of smear campaign. Or perhaps was it a new vain attempt of irony? I can't tell.
The ones I see in action talk by themselves, don’t they? Between Isis, Boka Haram, Al-Quaida, whipping an blogger in Saudi Arabia, cutting limbs, stoning to death a woman in the street and others obscurantists killers, I have plenty food for though. Carry-on to defend them, carry-on to pretend they have right to do what they want to do, carry-on to do that, and you just kill any possibility for Islam to reform
Because, but perhaps you don’t know, the Koran was not given by God, but written by men. As for the Christian and the Council of Nicaea, the early Muslim Clergy made some choices (Uthman copy).
Apparently, you can change the Koran as well (abrogations), even if it is still a little bit obscure to me as I just learnt it yesterday in following a debate between a Muslim Scholar, an atheist (leftist), 3 philosophes and a specialist in international relationships.
I will have to research on this bit.
And no, laws of physic do not belong to States, so you are just trying semantic in order to keep face. No problem with me.
“Has anyone started shooting others because of bikinis and pork? No? So definitely these are peripheral values, or rather rules of behavior. Evidently Muslims are tolerant enough to this. What CH did (and keeps doing) some of them thought to be endangering their core values.” Absolute :daisy:. Image of the Prophets were published during Middle-Ages, Renaissance and Modern Area. What you are describing is a choice by obscurantist religious Muslim fanatics and their mobsters to be offended. They decided to be offended by the publication by someone else not belonging to their Faith and to go for a kill as a message: “Fear us”. It is a political attack, a terror attack to gain political grounds, not a religious one. No religious debate, no controversy, the use of mob rules.
The relatively small number of “Muslims” demonstrating de facto proves your theory wrong.
“Try not to insult the feelings of others as much as you can help.” The day they will stop to pretend there is a god, as it hurts my core values.
Or the day they stop to pretend that their God is the only God, as it hurts the feeling of my Christian Friends.
The day they stop to pretend there is only one God as it hurts the core values of my Hindu friends. Well, I can carry-on, as each opinions can hurts the core values of someone else.
:sweatdrop:, I forgot: these are not core values as we don’t kill for them. Well, if we exclude the Norwegian Killer Breivik, of course.
You have a very strange system to value values…
If you don't want to see a picture of Mohammed, skip the grand mosque of Cordoba
Gilrandir
01-26-2015, 12:13
As long as I don't have change my ways I can live with all of them
By "screwing their feelings" you make changing your ways more probabale.
I know some values of the Koran: Basic inequalities between religions, basic inequalities between gender, expansionism, killings pagans, homosexuals and apostates.
Note that most religions have the same “values”
Before answering any of your philippics I must commend you on the remarkable piece of agrumentation your passionate atheism has inspired you into. Your richly embellished (I would even dare to call it picturesque) post with repetitive appeals and haughty pretense to exclusive right to be right (forgive my pun) shows that the Lord Brenus has not studied the Holy Art of Manipulation for naught. Accept my sincerest admiration. :bow:
Yet there are some points which may have escaped your consideration, so I would take upon myself the presumption to draw your esteemed attention to them. :bow:
Koran doesn't have ANY values, it has some tenets which it offers/demands from its followers to observe. Values pertain to the society. They may be created on the basis of any holy book, yet it doesn't mean that they wholly reflect the said tenets as humans (what with the time that has elapsed since their pronouncement what with the imperfectness of human nature in general) tend to distort/adapt them to their shifting purposes.
If these are the values you want us to respect, these values being against my values, they can carry-on to have tantrum and feelings hurts.
Did I even once mention "respect"? All I said is not to insult. You may have as much disrespect for anything, only there is no call to flaunt this disrespect into the face of "a rabied dog" (if my memory serves me in remembering your nomen of them). Evidently, it is hopeless for me to make you see what your are stirring against yourself. So I don't want you to do anything - I want you not to whine when you get what you could expect to get. So carry on with your atheistic crusade - but have a baseball bat in your sleeve.
The ones I see in action talk by themselves, don’t they? Between Isis, Boka Haram, Al-Quaida, whipping an blogger in Saudi Arabia, cutting limbs, stoning to death a woman in the street and others obscurantists killers, I have plenty food for though.
I can add some more - but attribute them to separatists/terrorists in Donbas, the ones you have been so vehemently defending and justifying.
Carry-on to defend them, carry-on to pretend they have right to do what they want to do, carry-on to do that, and you just kill any possibility for Islam to reform
Because, but perhaps you don’t know, the Koran was not given by God, but written by men. As for the Christian and the Council of Nicaea, the early Muslim Clergy made some choices (Uthman copy).Apparently, you can change the Koran as well (abrogations), even if it is still a little bit obscure to me as I just learnt it yesterday in following a debate between a Muslim Scholar, an atheist (leftist), 3 philosophes and a specialist in international relationships.
Regretfully, I must disappoint you - I know that neither holy book was written by God, yet it in no way diminishes their harmful/benign influence on the largest part of humanity. If you are not under this influence, so far you haven't managed to convince others that they shouldn't be either.
As for changing Koran or islam, I must disappoint you again (I understand how hard it may be to get two diappointments a day, but can do nothing about it - consider it a bad day for you). Faith/religion is about tradition and preservation. If one tries to update it (especially such conservative confession as islam), he will immediately earn the name of a renegade and create a debate or a divide which will lead to such amount of victims that CH pales in comparison.
And - once again - I don't want to defend anyone, I want you to realize what you are so obdurately are trying not to. As I'm completely "not invested", as our friend Sarmatian used to remark, I may have a different (perhaps clearer) perspective of things.
And no, laws of physic do not belong to States, so you are just trying semantic in order to keep face. No problem with me.
There is a problem - you yourself named it smoke-screening. We are speaking here of society, not of nature, so laws meant here have nothing to do with any of the sciences. So it is you who are juggling semantics.
Image of the Prophets were published during Middle-Ages, Renaissance and Modern Area.
Were they published in as much multicultural society with the same intent and sarcasm? And no one got hurt? Then you certainly don't know much about the Middle ages. With rampant religious intolerance of that time such pictures would have been enough to cause a jihad. In "Modern Area", as you put it, it resulted in terroristic attacks.
The relatively small number of “Muslims” demonstrating de facto proves your theory wrong.
You again fail to see:
MY THEORY IS NOT IMPORTANT. What is important is that your government allocated additional 0.5 billion euros (if the figure is wrong you are sure to correct me) for security measures, while the populace feels less secure. Screw the theories, as Frags says, look into the street being patrolled by armed policemen. You want to turn it into Israel? You are on the way.
“Try not to insult the feelings of others as much as you can help.” The day they will stop to pretend there is a god, as it hurts my core values.
Or the day they stop to pretend that their God is the only God, as it hurts the feeling of my Christian Friends.
The day they stop to pretend there is only one God as it hurts the core values of my Hindu friends. Well, I can carry-on, as each opinions can hurts the core values of someone else.
Do they publish insulting pictures meaning "atheists/christians/hinduists are morons and everything they believe in is crap"?
:sweatdrop:, I forgot: these are not core values as we don’t kill for them. Well, if we exclude the Norwegian Killer Breivik, of course.
By now you must realize that there are some people who are ready to kill for values. If you haven't, well carry on Hebdoing them. Just don't cry foul if they do. Because they think that, as you put it,
Not to obey someone else rules is part of freedom and in the frame of the law is a right we gain by fights.
Why not cry foul if someone kills innocents because of their values. There are perfectly fine deserts to have these values. France has it's own values. It isn't like they were dragged in chains comming there.
Satire is a long lived French tradition, nothing is safe, nothing is spared. Go somewhere else if you can't handle if.
These cartoons aren't even that bad, I think I will be breaking the rules if I post them so I won't, but if Charlie offends them they must make them really mad.
“Accept my sincerest admiration” Accepted.
“Koran doesn't have ANY values” Hmm, wasn’t you who wrote “their values which are the backbone of any laws including Islamic laws”. So? Quran does or doesn’t have values? Choose your pic, you lost me there.
“All I said is not to insult” They insult intelligence, and no one kill them for this.
“if my memory serves me in remembering your nomen of them” I am afraid your memories failed you. I compared (qualified) them with barbarians, which is an insult to barbarians.
“it is hopeless for me” Agree, as you misquoted and contradict yourself on almost (almost) every post.
“I can add some more - but attribute them to separatists/terrorists in Donbas, the ones you have been so vehemently defending and justifying.” Lies. When did I justify killing, slaughters and others war crimes?
“If one tries to update it (especially such conservative confession as islam), he will immediately earn the name of a renegade and create a debate or a divide which will lead to such amount of victims that CH pales in comparison” Interesting post.
You prove yourself even less inform than me about Islam. I, at least, know that there is a lot of streams in Islam, so, yes, reform(s) in Islam are possible, if Saudis, Koweit, Qatar and United Emirates stop to finance the most obscurantist one.
“I must disappoint you” I know. You never stop. I had hope, once…
“So it is you who are juggling semantics.” Still you. For your knowledge, Islam is as well a Law System, with offences and punishment included in the “core” of the Holly Book.
From BBC: All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).
“In "Modern Area": ~:mecry: Modern Area is the 16-17 Centuries…
“Do they publish insulting pictures meaning "atheists/christians/hinduists are morons and everything they believe in is crap"?” Yes they do, a lot.
Fighting for freedom is a little more than killing for hurt feelings.
Gilrandir
01-26-2015, 13:46
Why not cry foul if someone kills innocents because of their values. There are perfectly fine deserts to have these values. France has it's own values. It isn't like they were dragged in chains comming there.
Satire is a long lived French tradition, nothing is safe, nothing is spared. Go somewhere else if you can't handle if.
France allowed them to come in heaps so now it must learn to handle the problems resulting from it.
“Koran doesn't have ANY values” Hmm, wasn’t you who wrote “their values which are the backbone of any laws including Islamic laws”. So? Quran does or doesn’t have values? Choose your pic, you lost me there.
"their values" means "Muslim values" not "Koran values". As I have said, values are construed by and live in societies, not by any books.
“I can add some more - but attribute them to separatists/terrorists in Donbas, the ones you have been so vehemently defending and justifying.” Lies. When did I justify killing, slaughters and others war crimes?
Siding with them means justifying them. More than once you expressed your negative attitude to current Ukrainian (nazi) government and your worry for and sympathy with the "rioting populaces" in Donbas.
“If one tries to update it (especially such conservative confession as islam), he will immediately earn the name of a renegade and create a debate or a divide which will lead to such amount of victims that CH pales in comparison” Interesting post.
You prove yourself even less inform than me about Islam. I, at least, know that there is a lot of streams in Islam, so, yes, reform(s) in Islam are possible, if Saudis, Koweit, Qatar and United Emirates stop to finance the most obscurantist one.
These are streams which do not change the overall pretty universal mainstream ideology. Like there are different breeds of horses (even ponies) yet they are all horses.
“So it is you who are juggling semantics.” Still you. For your knowledge, Islam is as well a Law System, with offences and punishment included in the “core” of the Holly Book.
From BBC: All aspects of a Muslim's life are governed by Sharia. Sharia law comes from a combination of sources including the Qur'an (the Muslim holy book), the Hadith (sayings and conduct of the prophet Muhammad) and fatwas (the rulings of Islamic scholars).
Now who contradicts himself? Sharia is the (custom) law, yet it is not the state law, governing social life in the country. Yet some Islamic countries want to make it such with different degrees of success.
“In "Modern Area": ~:mecry: Modern Area is the 16-17 Centuries…
If 16 century is modern for you, then I must be speaking to an Ent. But even so, 16-17 centuries can hardly boast of religious tolerance.
Fighting for freedom is a little more than killing for hurt feelings.
Yet it may include the latter if the feelings are hurt badly (as they see it).
Yeah.. they must deal with it, all countries who have allowed entry to people who just rolled of the mountain and only know how to herd their women and love their goats have to. The answer to that is satire untill they are tired of getting angry of it, or just kicking them out if they are dangerous. Preferably at Callais.
Ironside
01-26-2015, 18:50
This is the normal condition of warfare. In our comfortable legalist and 'restrained' cultures we tend to forget that warfare boils down to:
Win.
Kill all of the enemy physically able to return to the fight.
Take all of their stuff.
Kill the elderly as a waste.
Take the children for your own property/Put babies into the women of the conquered.
Moreover, logically, this works better if you can get the drop on anyone around you so that they cannot do it to you first.
Any warfare that does not drop to this level is being attenuated by culture/ethics/etc.
That seems to be the baseline in the old Testament. They usually specify when they do worse. Like in Deuteronomy 2-3.
"4 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed[c] them—men, women and children. We left no survivors. 35 But the livestock and the plunder from the towns we had captured we carried off for ourselves."
[c] Deuteronomy 2:34 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord, often by totally destroying them.
Kralizec
01-26-2015, 20:10
What frustrates me most of all is that most politicians don't recognize these problems. Only one major party does really.
Every political party in the Netherlands recognises the problems with a certain part of our population. The difference is that most political parties respect our constitutional rights, including the freedom of religion.
I'm not a politician and for that, I will freely admit that I think some religions are more disagreeable than others. If I somehow were to start believing in God, I would sooner become jewish (allthough it's hard to get recognition as a convert) or a christian than a muslim. There's still the reality of their presence, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Any "solutions" you propose must start from that basic premise. The PVV will never accomplish anything meaningful on this subject, because they're not on the same page as everyone else.
Kralizec
01-26-2015, 20:14
“If you don't care then watch them burning and killing. THEY think they have a just reason to be offended.” :laugh4:, I don’t deny they felt (think would give them too much credit) that they have a reason to be offended. Imaginary one, but then, who I am to judge? However, if they have the right to be offended (hurt) in their feelings then THEIR answer (to kill, burn and pillage) is THEIR responsibility.
And some here think they have some justification in doing so. They murdered people, they made this choice. One again, CH (or others) have no reason(s) to bow to others demands of, how can I qualify this, respectability, un-touchability of their feelings.
To see women in bikini offends them as well, in fact to see women offends them, so do we have to lock our women at home, to ban them from workplace, hey, why not to put a police checking if we can see one of their hairs about of the burkhas that women will have to wear in order not to offend the feelings of this bench of obscurantist lunatics? And will you come with the answer that women killed (stoned to death) because they show an ankle to these thugs should have seen happening, so they should have not left home…
I think HoreTore once said in the backroom: Of course everybody can decide for themselves if they feel offended. That does not mean, however, that the rest of the world should care.
“France allowed them to come in heaps so now it must learn to handle the problems resulting from it.” Yope, that is call freedom. And France deals with them.
“As I have said, values are construed by and live in societies, not by any books.” You have no clue about what religion is, do you? The book is Holly, therefore it is law. By the way, can you explain the subtle difference between Muslim values and Quran values?
“More than once you expressed your negative attitude to current Ukrainian (nazi) government and your worry for and sympathy with the "rioting populaces" in Donbas” And this made me a supporter of war crimes, or atrocities? And even this is partial lies. But I refer you to what I REALLY wrote in the said debate.
“These are streams which do not change the overall pretty universal mainstream ideology” Which is?
“Sharia is the (custom) law, yet it is not the state law” So it is a law. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge of Islam, and how intimate are faith and laws.
“If 16 century is modern for you” You are trolling me, are you? Well, in case you don’t: History is divided in Periods: Pre-history, Antiquity, Middle-Ages (sometimes Dark Ages), Renaissance, Early Modern History and Modern History (contemporaine in French) History. So it is not modern History for ME, it is a classification. All right, I should have said Early Modern History, problem of translation…
“But even so, 16-17 centuries can hardly boast of religious tolerance” No, but that was not the point.
Every political party in the Netherlands recognises the problems with a certain part of our population. The difference is that most political parties respect our constitutional rights, including the freedom of religion.
I'm not a politician and for that, I will freely admit that I think some religions are more disagreeable than others. If I somehow were to start believing in God, I would sooner become jewish (allthough it's hard to get recognition as a convert) or a christian than a muslim. There's still the reality of their presence, and they deserve the same rights as everyone else. Any "solutions" you propose must start from that basic premise. The PVV will never accomplish anything meaningful on this subject, because they're not on the same page as everyone else.
We'll see. The PVV is the biggest party in all ratings, more seats than the current government combined. They will be excluded by a rainbow-coalition of course despite being the biggest, that is how things roll. Maybe that is for the better but they aren't going to go away, the PVV will keep growing.
Gilrandir
01-27-2015, 12:29
The book is Holly, therefore it is law.
Wrong. Holiness has nothing to do with legislature. Many things that are written in the Bible (considered to be holy) are not laws. For example, one of the commandments says that you mustn't desire your fellow's wife. Is there a christian country where conjugal infidelity/promiscuity is a felony? It may be a custom law which is held sacred by the believers, but it doesn't have any power over non-believers or adherents of other confessions.
By the way, can you explain the subtle difference between Muslim values and Quran values?
Like I said: there are no Koran values - there are tenets. If a society chooses them to be guiding principles they become values. The same with other societies and other holy books.
“These are streams which do not change the overall pretty universal mainstream ideology” Which is?
Google it yourself.
“Sharia is the (custom) law, yet it is not the state law” So it is a law.
From wikipedia:
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. Laws can be made by legislatures through legislation (resulting in statutes), the executive through decrees and regulations, or judges through binding precedent (normally in common law jurisdictions).
Again from wikipedia:
Sharia means the moral code and religious law of a prophetic religion.
If Sharia is a RELIGIOUS law it binds only believers, while law in general binds all the citizens of a country. It is true, though, that some Muslim countries try to make sharia civil/criminal (thus universal law). (Again from wikipedia: Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation in various Muslim countries, namely Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Brunei, United Arab Emirates and Qatar). I don't know whether this means they adopt such a decision legally or make it a custom practice.
“But even so, 16-17 centuries can hardly boast of religious tolerance” No, but that was not the point.
It was: you said that in the past (including 16-17 centuries ) the muslim prophet was ridiculed, yet it didn't provoke any killings. My argument was that those were ages rampant with all kinds of intolerance, including the religious one (remember inquisition, for instance), so such things would have been causes for serious turmoils.
Is there a christian country where conjugal infidelity/promiscuity is a felony?
Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#United_States_of_America)
Gilrandir
01-27-2015, 13:14
Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#United_States_of_America)
I'm not sure if you mean this:
Later, some jurisdictions, a total of 16 in the southern and eastern United States, as well as the states of Wisconsin[131] and Utah,[132] passed statutes creating the offense of fornication that prohibited (vaginal) sexual intercourse between two unmarried people of the opposite sex. Most of these laws either were repealed, were not enforced, or were struck down by the courts in several states as being odious to their state constitutions.
But, first of all, such laws (as the article shows) were repealed, so even if there WERE such countries there AREN'T, and secondly, they legally prohibited sex between UNMARRIEDS, while the Bibile prohibits CONJUGAL infidelity.
I'm not sure what conjugal infidelity means.
In any case, adultery is not a criminal offense but still has serious legal implications, so interpret that the way you like.
Also here (http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/11/15/adultery-still-crime-states-including-mass/KiIPGRcFnAeT4CGmenFTKM/story.html).
EDIT: To get back on topic, interestingly, in the early Middle Ages there were some poets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%CA%BFarri) who ridiculed Islam and got away with it. So yeah, this kind of reaction is a modern thing I guess.
Gilrandir
01-27-2015, 16:21
EDIT: To get back on topic, interestingly, in the early Middle Ages there were some poets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%CA%BFarri) who ridiculed Islam and got away with it. So yeah, this kind of reaction is a modern thing I guess.
In your link I saw only one poet mentioned. And he was blind, so perhaps it was considered wrong to harm a person who had been punished enough by destiny (God). Or it could be equally seen as railing of a person against destiny (God) that had punished him. I believe people at that time often had such a perception of diseases. Moreover, we don't know how much critical he was in his verses of Islam or any other religion and how he worded his criticism. Perhaps he was subtle enough in allegories for the simple minds not to spot it. Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough. Perhaps he was only known locally or (relatively) widely to a small group of literates. In both cases I believe those literates who didn't fancy his works might have seen to it that they were not made public or at least not widely known.
But you didn't mention any other men of letters (and not only) who were not so lucky. I'm sure there were many more of such cases.
It is true, though, that today, any of such blasphemies (as they see it) are known swifter and broader (like Rushdie). Moreover, with modern techniques of spinning and propaganda it is easier to give a desired/undesired explanation to anything and easier to stir larger quantities of people to violence.
In your link I saw only one poet mentioned. And he was blind, so perhaps it was considered wrong to harm a person who had been punished enough by destiny (God). Or it could be equally seen as railing of a person against destiny (God) that had punished him.
Fine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_al-Rawandi)
I believe people at that time often had such a perception of diseases.
Citation required.
Moreover, we don't know how much critical he was in his verses of Islam or any other religion and how he worded his criticism.
Yes we do.
Perhaps he was subtle enough in allegories for the simple minds not to spot it.
No he wasn't.
“اثنان أهل الأرض : ذو عقــلٍ بلا ديــن وآخر ديِّنٌ لا عقل لهْ”
There are two people on the earth: those with brains and no faith, and the other believe but has no brains". Very subtle.
Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough. Perhaps he was only known locally or (relatively) widely to a small group of literates. In both cases I believe those literates who didn't fancy his works might have seen to it that they were not made public or at least not widely known.
Eh. Whatever. We don't know too much about literacy rates in mediæval Arabian culture, so we're talking about literature for the elite per definition. He was still immensely popular.
But you didn't mention any other men of letters (and not only) who were not so lucky. I'm sure there were many more of such cases.
Citation required. What was much more dangerous in mediæval Islam was heresy, not atheism. It would appear that both were more-or-less tolerated in most situations, but when one famous mystic declared "I am the truth" (Ar. انا الحق) he was executed.
EDIT: The list goes on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Isa_al-Warraq).
It is true, though, that today, any of such blasphemies (as they see it) are known swifter and broader (like Rushdie). Moreover, with modern techniques of spinning and propaganda it is easier to give a desired/undesired explanation to anything and easier to stir larger quantities of people to violence.
Yeah, alright. Perhaps.
“I don't know whether this means they adopt such a decision legally or make it a custom practice.” Err, what was obscure in the text you copied from Wiki? “Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation” and” Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour” Religions, through Churches are social Institutions.
“Many things that are written in the Bible (considered to be holy) are not laws.” True, but we speak of Islam here.
“For example, one of the commandments says that you mustn't desire your fellow's wife” I like this one… Can the fellow’s wife desire you? Sexists, all of them…:laugh4:
The Quran is a law book, a history book and a book of moral: Moral goes with the law. Immoral = illegal, illegal=immoral. All Religions tend to do this, but it is completely integrated in the Quran. And some aspect are added following the life of the Prophet (roughly), so 2 main divider in Islam: Sunnites and Shiites. Then you have an immense variety of different interpretations within the two main, so Islam can go from pacifists to warlike preachers. And Google won’t give an answer to who’s the main stream as Islam is as well politic, reason why you didn’t even try to answer, wisely.
“Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough.” Unlike the Afghans, Pakistanis, Indonesians and others who speak fluently french and were all able to detect the "offence".
Seamus Fermanagh
01-28-2015, 00:31
Yes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#United_States_of_America)
Adultery remains illegal in many US states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery)to this day, albeit it is seldom enforced.
Also specifically prohibited by our military's UCMJ (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm1342.htm), though penalties are typically maxed only when the behavior is compounded by other factors detrimental to military discipline.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-28-2015, 01:14
I'm not sure what conjugal infidelity means.
Putting the Gladius in the Vagina, dear boy.
Thanks for posting a more eloquent and in-depth response :bow: I was aware there were adultery laws, but I wasn't too sure of the extent to which they function.
Putting the Gladius in the Vagina, dear boy.
Alright :D
hihihi PVC has a short one. Not that it matters, it's what you do with it
a completely inoffensive name
01-28-2015, 09:12
Putting the Gladius in the Vagina, dear boy.
Pretty sure most women wouldn't find a sword in their vagina sexy.
yes, I know the joke...
Fun fact: A vagina and a sheath for a sword are both called "Scheide" in German.
Fun fact: A vagina and a sheath for a sword are both called "Scheide" in German.
Same here, but 'schede'
Gilrandir
01-28-2015, 15:11
Citation required.
John 9:2:
His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
Of course Jesus answered that neither, yet his disciples (perhaps reflecting the existing social idea) believed that there is a connection between deformity and punishment (for former sins).
Also:
"God displayed anger with them and departed. When the cloud left the Tent, Miriam was leprous, white like snow. Aaron turned to Miriam, and saw she was leprous." (Num. 12:9-10)
And usually in middle ages epidemics were believed to be scourges, punishments from God.
http://history.howstuffworks.com/historical-events/black-death2.htm
Eh. Whatever. We don't know too much about literacy rates in mediæval Arabian culture, so we're talking about literature for the elite per definition. He was still immensely popular.
Citation required. What was much more dangerous in mediæval Islam was heresy, not atheism. It would appear that both were more-or-less tolerated in most situations, but when one famous mystic declared "I am the truth" (Ar. انا الحق) he was executed.
I don't claim to know much of medieval islamic poets, so most of my considerations were surmises (as you may have noticed, they were strewed by I believe or I think). Yet I don't doubt that the age of general intolerance (in Europe, in particular) was witness to many executions (Bruno, for once) and massacres on religious grounds. Perhaps, in the East it wasn't the case, yet I think that Islamic world was no exception to the general tendency of the time, so one so knowledgeable of it as you would have find plenty of cases when heretics/atheists were murdered or otherwise suffered for their views (or at least for expressing them in public). For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj
Err, what was obscure in the text you copied from Wiki? “Sharia Law is a significant source of legislation” and” Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour” Religions, through Churches are social Institutions.
Albeit being a social institution, church (except perhaps in some Muslim countries) doesn't enforce laws.
Can the fellow’s wife desire you?
Nah! Commandments are meant for men. Women can do whatever they want.
The Quran is a law book, a history book and a book of moral: Moral goes with the law. Immoral = illegal, illegal=immoral. All Religions tend to do this, but it is completely integrated in the Quran.
Yet I (well, not I but wikipedia) gave the limited list of countries in which the equations you offer is more or less kept as sharia is only A SOURCE (meaning one of the sources and I don't know how significant it is in comparison to others) in these half a dozen states. In other muslim countries, evidently immoral =/= illegal.
And some aspect are added following the life of the Prophet (roughly), so 2 main divider in Islam: Sunnites and Shiites. Then you have an immense variety of different interpretations within the two main, so Islam can go from pacifists to warlike preachers. And Google won’t give an answer to who’s the main stream as Islam is as well politic, reason why you didn’t even try to answer, wisely.
Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Instead of "mainstream" I should have had "typical, average". And I hope you can figure out typical islamic values.
“Plus, through almost complete illiteracy of population at those times I don't think his audience was large enough.” Unlike the Afghans, Pakistanis, Indonesians and others who speak fluently french and were all able to detect the "offence".
Like I said: modern era offers plenty of opportunity to blow some idea or fear out of proportions.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-28-2015, 19:27
hihihi PVC has a short one. Not that it matters, it's what you do with it
18 inches is short?
Fun fact: A vagina and a sheath for a sword are both called "Scheide" in German.
Proof that soldiers will always relate their equipment to the female anatomy. The Latin "Vagina" just means "sheaf", the fact that it's a polite word for a woman genitalia gives me constant amusement.
Perhaps, in the East it wasn't the case, yet I think that Islamic world was no exception to the general tendency of the time, so one so knowledgeable of it as you would have find plenty of cases when heretics/atheists were murdered or otherwise suffered for their views (or at least for expressing them in public). For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansur_Al-Hallaj
Yes, Mansur al-Hallaj was the guy I quoted in my post. The point I was making is that he wasn't an atheist, but a heretic.
18 inches is short?
No that's pretty damn big, are we still talking about swords
Gilrandir
01-29-2015, 09:10
Yes, Mansur al-Hallaj was the guy I quoted in my post. The point I was making is that he wasn't an atheist, but a heretic.
I don't think it is that important. What I tried to expose is that Middle Ages were not tolerant, even violent, to people who were different from the average. It concerns nationality, confession, skin color and so on. Those who were tended to fare poorly. Thus, the claim that violence stemming from religious intolerance is a new development is false.
I don't think it is that important
Okay, well, you're entitled to your opinion.
What I tried to expose is that Middle Ages were not tolerant, even violent, to people who were different from the average.
Well, obviously. I think that goes for many societies even nowadays.
Thus, the claim that violence stemming from religious intolerance is a new development is false.
Not violence per se, but this kind of mob mentality/vigiliante-style 'justice'. What you forget is that Mansur al-Hallaj was not murdered by a mob, but put on trial and executed by the state. You know who else were persecuted by the state in medieval times? Extremist preachers (http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ip/rep/H039.htm).
Seamus Fermanagh
01-29-2015, 19:46
...Proof that soldiers will always relate their equipment to the female anatomy. The Latin "Vagina" just means "sheaf", the fact that it's a polite word for a woman genitalia gives me constant amusement.
Well, most Romans -- except in public speech -- probably used the term cunnus more anyway. Prior to Octavian, they were a rather "earthy" sort for the most part. He was the one who was trying to cover all of the normal bricks with marble facades anyway...
Gilrandir
01-30-2015, 09:56
Not violence per se, but this kind of mob mentality/vigiliante-style 'justice'. What you forget is that Mansur al-Hallaj was not murdered by a mob, but put on trial and executed by the state.
The staff of CH were not murdered by the mob either (but not after a state trial too). But, again, I don't agree that mob mentality justice (as you term it) is a new development either. I don't know whether it was the case with Mansur but manipulating crowds is an old game, with "trial" of Jesus as an example. Then the official trial may follow or accompany public censure (= raving crowd outside the courtroom).
The trial of Jesus is a semi-mythical event, so I'm not really sure that it's a good idea to use that as an example. Now I don't disagree with your premise, but the attack on the Charlie Hebdo's staff was the consequence of a certain kind of mentality which has become much more common in the last 200 years or so. Keep in mind, Mansur al-Hallaj was kept on trial for eleven years.
It's interesting to see how the interpretation of Sharī'a law has changed in so far as that some Muslims believe that it's no longer the state's but the individual's duty to enforce it.
Gilrandir
01-30-2015, 12:17
Now I don't disagree with your premise, but the attack on the Charlie Hebdo's staff was the consequence of a certain kind of mentality which has become much more common in the last 200 years or so.
I don't agree on the date. Group/mob mentality is what has helped isolated communities survive since time immemorial.
Keep in mind, Mansur al-Hallaj was kept on trial for eleven years.
At that time it took people ages to travel from, say, Outremer to Paris. Now everything happens faster.
It's interesting to see how the interpretation of Sharī'a law has changed in so far as that some Muslims believe that it's no longer the state's but the individual's duty to enforce it.
Since the list of states supposed to enforce Sharia laws is definitely too short for those Muslims you speak of, they take justice (as they see it) into their hands.
correction: much more common in the Islamic world in the last 200 years.
At that time it took people ages to travel from, say, Outremer to Paris. Now everything happens faster.
Eleven years.
Since the list of states supposed to enforce Sharia laws is definitely too short for those Muslims you speak of, they take justice (as they see it) into their hands.
Yes, maybe.
And another attack by someone who has culture. There is only one thing that has nothing to do with it.
#yeahright
You couldn't make it up. A debate about freedom of speech and Charlie Hebto at a school for journalists banned images of Charlie Hebdo because OFFENCE. The one who decided that was a proud jesuischarlie. No you idiot you are not Charlie. Worst is that he probably doesn't understand that. Gutmenschen are so weird.
Gilrandir
02-20-2015, 16:02
You couldn't make it up. A debate about freedom of speech and Charlie Hebto at a school for journalists banned images of Charlie Hebdo because OFFENCE. The one who decided that was a proud jesuischarlie. No you idiot you are not Charlie. Worst is that he probably doesn't understand that. Gutmenschen are so weird.
Prudence, nothing more. They at least made sure no obscurantist scum will have a pretext of starting a new shoot out.
rory_20_uk
02-20-2015, 16:52
If you want to avoid confrontation it is always prudent to give into those who might take offence and turn to violence.
But that rather undermines most of Western Democracy and the very free speech we apparently pretend to have.
~:smoking:
Prudence, nothing more. They at least made sure no obscurantist scum will have a pretext of starting a new shoot out.
Than don't pretend you are in favour of free speech, tu n'est pas Charlie
Gilrandir
02-20-2015, 17:32
Than don't pretend you are in favour of free speech, tu n'est pas Charlie
Like I said before: unlimited freedom is anarchy, your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start. One can't abuse others giving freedom of speech as an excuse. But if those others resort to violence in response (and you knew they are likely to) be ready to meet them with a naked sword or die. Amen.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-21-2015, 01:52
The whole point of the freedom of speech is to be able to offend -- especially those holding office on my behalf.
The correct point of curtailment is when the exercise of the freedom of speech represents a "clear and present danger" to those around me -- and not before. I have a right to speak offensively and they have the right to speak back, to ignore me, or to shun me for my boorishness.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Like I said before: unlimited freedom is anarchy, your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start. One can't abuse others giving freedom of speech as an excuse. But if those others resort to violence in response (and you knew they are likely to) be ready to meet them with a naked sword or die. Amen.
Freedom of speech ends when calling for violence, untill there and no further.
Greyblades
02-21-2015, 10:59
The whole point of the freedom of speech is to be able to offend -- especially those holding office on my behalf.
The correct point of curtailment is when the exercise of the freedom of speech represents a "clear and present danger" to those around me -- and not before. I have a right to speak offensively and they have the right to speak back, to ignore me, or to shun me for my boorishness.
Thus endeth the lesson.
Addendum: Freedom of Speech protects speakers from censorship and retaliation from the government, that protection does not extend to private individuals and companies denying you access to thier property in response to said speech.
Gilrandir
02-21-2015, 15:10
I have a right to speak offensively and they have the right to speak back, to ignore me, or to shun me for my boorishness.
... or to sue you. But one always gotta consider who one choses to offend. Like it is stupid to yell offences at a group of hoodlums in a dark lane of a criminal neighborhood and claim they have right only to yell back at you. This seems what CH tried to do.
... or to sue you. But one always gotta consider who one choses to offend. Like it is stupid to yell offences at a group of hoodlums in a dark lane of a criminal neighborhood and claim they have right only to yell back at you. This seems what CH tried to do.
Yes, but laws and rights are about ideals usually, not about representing the reality. And when you break a law, law enforcement should hunt you down and punish you. So unless you're saying that we should change all laws to say that thugs will beat you up anyway so it's fine for them to do that and remove the right to free speech from our constitutions, you just look like you're playing Captain Obvious.
CH did what they had to do and they suffered the consequences. That is not ideal, but I don't think most people in the west would argue with that. The idea of the protests is probably to stand behind that ideal and somehow put public pressure on people who plan to do such things not to do them. Probably futile, but maybe that's why I don't participate in these things.
Gilrandir
02-21-2015, 17:02
CH did what they had to do and they suffered the consequences.
Not "had to do" but "chose to do". They had freedom to choose what they publish, but failed (or didn't want) to see what it may lead to. Free but reckless.
That is not ideal, but I don't think most people in the west would argue with that.
Some people here (from the west) didn't see it that way and said that they suffered for naught.
“This seems what CH tried to do.” You have no idea of what you speak of. The offence existed only on people who choose to take this pretext in order to achieve a political gain. And, well, succeeded, at least with you, as you prefer to shut-up instead to rise to the threat. To be fair, you are not alone as the majority of the western media did exactly this.
Let’s submit and perhaps, perhaps, they will let us live.
Would you say that the Jews are responsible to anti-Semitism? No Jews, no anti-Semitism. Probably not, but in the case of CH you blame the victims (forgetting the Jews killed by the same Fanatic Islamic group). So, what were the Jews guilty of, in your eyes, to deserve to be killed? What provocation should have they stop to carry-on?
By the way, the Danish attack was carried out on a country which has a total opposite policy than France. Girl aged 12 are allowed to wear burka at school, and where blaspheme is an offence. So, give-up to bullies (be polite, as you wrote it) didn’t work apparently. Ooops, what a shame, these terrorists never know when to stop indeed.
a completely inoffensive name
02-21-2015, 21:01
your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start.
I agree Chaplin should have been locked up for that Hitler movie he made. I heard the Fuhrer cried in his bunker for 3 days after watching it.
Is this why Eastern Europe is such a shit hole? Did everyone learn Western European values from their uncle who spent a holiday in France?
CrossLOPER
02-22-2015, 00:02
Like I said before: unlimited freedom is anarchy, your freedom of speech ends where the feelings of others start. One can't abuse others giving freedom of speech as an excuse. But if those others resort to violence in response (and you knew they are likely to) be ready to meet them with a naked sword or die. Amen.
I find your posts offensive. Shut up.
"I find your posts offensive. Shut up".You forget "or I kill you". I am sure that Gilrandir will run to buy a bulletproof-jacket, start to fortify his house, hiring bodyguards for his family, well, taking caution now.
Gilrandir
02-22-2015, 12:30
“This seems what CH tried to do.” You have no idea of what you speak of. The offence existed only on people who choose to take this pretext in order to achieve a political gain. And, well, succeeded, at least with you, as you prefer to shut-up instead to rise to the threat. To be fair, you are not alone as the majority of the western media did exactly this.
Let’s submit and perhaps, perhaps, they will let us live.
I didn't offend anyone (except CrossLOPER, evidently) so I don't have to shut up. If you still don't see anything wrong or reckless in what CH did (and evidently is doing), well, carry on. Just don't bump into armed cops while threading your way through a crowd of policemen on your way home or shopping. And don't complain of social programs being cut down in favor of security expenses.
Would you say that the Jews are responsible to anti-Semitism? No Jews, no anti-Semitism. Probably not, but in the case of CH you blame the victims (forgetting the Jews killed by the same Fanatic Islamic group). So, what were the Jews guilty of, in your eyes, to deserve to be killed? What provocation should have they stop to carry-on?
Anti-semitism is a groundless antipathy to Jews. They were killed just because they were Jews. In case of CH, antipathy was not groundless (for those who did it). So the difference is between killing for what you ARE and killing for what you DO. But you again distort my attitude: more that once I said I was sorry for the victims and called terrorists what they are. I just wanted you to see... well ... what you evidently never will. So, reap what you sowed.
As for "no Jews - no antisemitism", I have an opposite attitude to the problem: no emigrants - no terrorism. Once (although in a different thread) I expressed my view: I don't like people from foreign countries settling in Ukraine and I don't like Ukrainians settling abroad. Everyone should live where he was born.
By the way, the Danish attack was carried out on a country which has a total opposite policy than France. Girl aged 12 are allowed to wear burka at school, and where blaspheme is an offence. So, give-up to bullies (be polite, as you wrote it) didn’t work apparently.
It is true, such things may happen even in the most friendly environments. But the chances will grow when you behave the way CH did. It is like vaccination: even if you are vaccinated you may contract a disease, but if you are not the odds, that you will fall ill, enhance.
Ooops, what a shame, these terrorists never know when to stop indeed.
I'm as much angry at what Russia is doing in Donbas as you are.
I agree Chaplin should have been locked up for that Hitler movie he made. I heard the Fuhrer cried in his bunker for 3 days after watching it.
So you equate Mohammed and Hitler?
Is this why Eastern Europe is such a shit hole? Did everyone learn Western European values from their uncle who spent a holiday in France?
I don't know, you tell me. Never visited Eastern Europe, never had an uncle visiting France.
I find your posts offensive. Shut up.
If you kindly point to what you find offensive in my posts I would consider your claim. Until then I will do as I like and speak as I please.
Gilrandir
02-22-2015, 12:31
Edit: redundant post.
If you kindly point to what you find offensive in my posts I would consider your claim. Until then I will do as I like and speak as I please.
If I'm allowed to guess: Your limiting of his freedom runs counter to his religiously-held belief that he should have complete freedom. The idea of freedom is sacred to him and he firmly believes that the tree of liberty has to be watered with blood once in a while...
:stare:
Meanwhile in Norway, 1000 muslims encircle a jewish house of prayers.
To protect it and show solidarity.
Good.
Seamus Fermanagh
02-22-2015, 16:24
"I find your posts offensive. Shut up".You forget "or I kill you". I am sure that Gilrandir will run to buy a bulletproof-jacket, start to fortify his house, hiring bodyguards for his family, well, taking caution now.
Your real Montana survivalist won't trust hired bodyguards....and stocks unhybridized seed for when things REALLY get interesting.
Don Corleone
02-22-2015, 17:29
Meanwhile in Norway, 1000 muslims encircle a jewish house of prayers.
To protect it and show solidarity.
Good.
I was just about to start a thread about this. And sure enough, Fragony of all people scoops me on a story about what Muslims are actually doing to maintain peace and civility and peace in their new homes.
For those of you that are wondering what we're talking about, here's a link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/11427713/Muslims-form-ring-of-peace-to-protect-Oslo-synagogue.html).
Best ray of hope I've seen in this mess for a long time. What brave guys... They know better than we do that the extremists will have particular anger towards them, being seen as traitors.
What's the out of all people part, did I ever say anything bad about muslims, I only did about islam, which I disgust. And will keep finding disgusting.
Don Corleone
02-22-2015, 19:56
No offense intended my friend. It just struck me as ironic was all. You're clearly more open-minded than I give you credit for sometimes.
meh, leftist hoax. There were only 20. Reality: the funeral of the Copenhagen-killer was attended by 400. Not that it isn't a nice gesture from those who holded hands but making this much bigger than it is only feeds my cynism.
@leftist journalists
/joker voice
Why so desperate
/joker voice off
Could as well have wrote about the courage of these twenty, instead of lying about it being a thousand.
“They were killed just because they were Jews. In case of CH, antipathy was not groundless (for those who did it). So the difference is between killing for what you ARE and killing for what you DO.” Nope, they killed the Jews because it is a holy duty written in the Quran. In fact, to kill unfaithful and atheists is a duty (and CH team were part of the second category), where some rightly argue that an offence to the Prophet is not worth death penalty.
That is the problem with most of the people believing in a so-called offence: it doesn’t exist in the Quran; I repeat: there no command in the Quran about images, not interdiction to represent (draw a picture) the Prophet.
So, the offence was groundless (in terms of what Quran demands), the killing of Jews not. The first fatwas against the representation of Mohamed date from the beginning of the XX Century.
http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298
The ring of peace hoax gets even more hilarious, the organiser is a notorious antisemite who thinks jews are behind 9/11. Thank you for your bedtime-stories quality media, I am back to blogs.
A shame it was a hoax.
Gilrandir
02-23-2015, 15:59
“They were killed just because they were Jews. In case of CH, antipathy was not groundless (for those who did it). So the difference is between killing for what you ARE and killing for what you DO.” Nope, they killed the Jews because it is a holy duty written in the Quran. In fact, to kill unfaithful and atheists is a duty (and CH team were part of the second category), where some rightly argue that an offence to the Prophet is not worth death penalty.
That is the problem with most of the people believing in a so-called offence: it doesn’t exist in the Quran; I repeat: there no command in the Quran about images, not interdiction to represent (draw a picture) the Prophet.
So, the offence was groundless (in terms of what Quran demands), the killing of Jews not. The first fatwas against the representation of Mohamed date from the beginning of the XX Century.
I didn't read Quran, and knowing your meticulous nature I guess you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it. But I read the Bible and I believe that most holy books are pretty much the same in what can be called a copyright law: "I am the only God, believe in me only and if you don't you will be punished by me". By way of variety it may include something like: "Don't wait until I punish those that don't believe in me, do it yourself will ya".
From my observation of the Bible texts, they are the worst to refer to if you want to prove any point since they are so versatile that any point may be proved by referring to them. Consequently, people who try to look for justification for whatever nasty things they do find in it everything they were looking for. On the other hand, people who try to become "better Samaritans" find in it plenty of justification for whatever nice things they do. Conclusion: people see in holy texts what they like, focusing on what chimes with their preconceived intent and disregarding what contradicts it. Thus it is useless to blame religion(s), one must blame people who apply their (i.e. religions') muddily intertwined tenets in the way they like "enriching" their understanding of the tenets with the attitudes they bring in.
Snowhobbit
02-23-2015, 18:14
I didn't read Quran, and knowing your meticulous nature I guess you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it. But I read the Bible and I believe that most holy books are pretty much the same in what can be called a copyright law: "I am the only God, believe in me only and if you don't you will be punished by me". By way of variety it may include something like: "Don't wait until I punish those that don't believe in me, do it yourself will ya".
From my observation of the Bible texts, they are the worst to refer to if you want to prove any point since they are so versatile that any point may be proved by referring to them. Consequently, people who try to look for justification for whatever nasty things they do find in it everything they were looking for. On the other hand, people who try to become "better Samaritans" find in it plenty of justification for whatever nice things they do. Conclusion: people see in holy texts what they like, focusing on what chimes with their preconceived intent and disregarding what contradicts it. Thus it is useless to blame religion(s), one must blame people who apply their (i.e. religions') muddily intertwined tenets in the way they like "enriching" their understanding of the tenets with the attitudes they bring in.
The issue is that modern Christianity does not follow most of the old Testament, I think Jesus rejected parts of it too? As opposed to Islam where the book was not written by men but by Allah himself, and as such the word by word faithfuls are a very large group of the Muslim population.
rory_20_uk
02-23-2015, 18:29
The issue is that modern Christianity does not follow most of the old Testament, I think Jesus rejected parts of it too? As opposed to Islam where the book was not written by men but by Allah himself, and as such the word by word faithfuls are a very large group of the Muslim population.
Exactly. Christianity has a massive amount of wiggle room (if it wants it - some denominations also state it is the literal word of God such as the Seventh Day Adventists) and people can even leave the faith without being labelled apostate and deserving of death.
Many groups such as the Cathars testify to the fact Christianity can be just as intolerant as the next group of Zealots but one is not disobeying God by not undertaking a Holy War.
~:smoking:
“I didn't read Quran, and knowing your meticulous nature I guess you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it. But I read the Bible and I believe that most holy books are pretty much the same in what can be called a copyright law: "I am the only God, believe in me only and if you don't you will be punished by me"” Well, I did and I did, errr ,most of it, as these 2 books are really boring.
However, I do not hate books (or religions) as such. So again you assume. To be against an ideology or a religion (core or teaching) is not hatred, but perhaps you think in this kind of terms, so you think that everyone does.
So I assure you solemnly here that I do not hate the Quran, the Bible, Star Wars and the Force or the Nordic Tales, nor their followers. They are all about fiction more or less well written.
However, in this debate you try to derail by attack against my person (again: It is a bit draining. Each time you are running out of intellectual arguments, you resort to this. You should do something about it), the facts are stubborn. We have a saying in French which have probably equivalent in all languages: Spoken words blow with the winds, words in writing stay.
You explained that the killers have grounds to be offended because the Quran said so, but the Quran doesn’t. If fact, you, as you admit, didn’t read the Quran, but were well happy to support the extremists claims pretending to be offended on inexistent writing, whereas you evacuated the killing of Jews when this is written in the Quran. You didn’t bother to check.
And I have no quail about the others books (holly ones) as you are right, they all claim to be THE real religion worshipping THE only God, and that is why in our times you can’t have the offence of blaspheme in modern constitutions, as one religion is blaspheme to the other (and even within the main stream of religions i.e. Catholicism, Protestantism and Eastern European Christians, but not only).
But I am sure you find a way to rebound in your claim that the killers, even if the book they refer to said nothing about the cause of offence, still had reason to kill. Com’on…
meh, leftist hoax. There were only 20. Reality: the funeral of the Copenhagen-killer was attended by 400. Not that it isn't a nice gesture from those who holded hands but making this much bigger than it is only feeds my cynism.
@leftist journalists
/joker voice
Why so desperate
/joker voice off
Could as well have wrote about the courage of these twenty, instead of lying about it being a thousand.
https://i.imgur.com/cguGAiG.jpg
It is 1,200~ ish of Muslims, Nuns, and other faith groups. They did it in front of the building (not around it, as they didn't have permission).
As for the Leader being a notorious anti-semite, he said at the rally he has made mistakes in the past with such views.
Considering the link given was the Telegraph, they are actually central-right journalists, not left.
Greyblades
02-24-2015, 02:16
https://i.imgur.com/cguGAiG.jpg
It is 1,200~ ish of Muslims, Nuns, and other faith groups. They did it in front of the building (not around it, as they didn't have permission).
As for the Leader being a notorious anti-semite, he said at the rally he has made mistakes in the past with such views.
Considering the link given was the Telegraph, they are actually central-right journalists, not left.
you have to remember that Fragony has the occasional habit of working off the american scale of politics. By thier measure David Cameron is a screaming pinko commie homosexual hippie.
https://i.imgur.com/cguGAiG.jpg
It is 1,200~ ish of Muslims, Nuns, and other faith groups. They did it in front of the building (not around it, as they didn't have permission).
As for the Leader being a notorious anti-semite, he said at the rally he has made mistakes in the past with such views.
Considering the link given was the Telegraph, they are actually central-right journalists, not left.
Those bystanders are locals, Telegraph Just took over Danish newspapers.
Hoax. A shame really.
Greyblades HI Robin, Batman can handle it
Those bystanders are locals
Isn't everybody involved a local or were you expecting Saudi Arabian tourists to do it?
Isn't everybody involved a local
Depends on how you look at it, I don't see immigrants as locals but as guests, guests who are welcome to settle. But the crowd you see there are obviously native Norwegian, and 20 who are obviously not, and who have my highest respect.
Depends on how you look at it, I don't see immigrants as locals but as guests, guests who are welcome to settle. But the crowd you see there are obviously native Norwegian, and 20 who are obviously not, and who have my highest respect.
How can you expect them to feel at home if you treat them like guests?
Hoax.
This wasn't a hoax. Some people/media conflated the number of people present with the number of muslims present.
It should teach you a lesson about not getting excited over headlines too quickly. Provided you actually read the news correctly, that is; you didn't actually present your source. The Telegraph article does not talk about 1000 muslims, but 1000 people.
This wasn't a hoax. Some people/media conflated the number of people present with the number of muslims present.
It should teach you a lesson about not getting excited over headlines too quickly. Provided you actually read the news correctly, that is; you didn't actually present your source. The Telegraph article does not talk about 1000 muslims, but 1000 people.
Just one of the many newspapers of who reported on this, many absolutily stated it were a thousand muslims; I didn't post the Telegraphe article. I really wanted this to be true but it turns it isn't true. That doesn't mean anything on the muslim part but it says a lor about the leftist church. I can totally empathise with the difficulties muslims have here and why they don't speak out, but I have zero respect for islamists and charlie's latest best friend who leave normal muslims who only care about what's for dinner in the cold. Respect and all that. l'll gladly have a cup of tea with these twenty, that takes guts.
Gilrandir
02-24-2015, 15:05
However, in this debate you try to derail by attack against my person (again: It is a bit draining. Each time you are running out of intellectual arguments, you resort to this. You should do something about it), the facts are stubborn.
Some time ago I was really exasperated about your stubborn desire to see only your side of the story, believing only in your own omniscience, distorting others' words and inventing answers for them. Now I'm tired of trying to make one see what one can't. So it's beyond redemption. My latest post had none of the things you want to see in it. Unless you consider the word "meticulous" as an offense. If you do, read the dictionary for the meaning of it.
You explained that the killers have grounds to be offended because the Quran said so, but the Quran doesn’t. If fact, you, as you admit, didn’t read the Quran, but were well happy to support the extremists claims pretending to be offended on inexistent writing, whereas you evacuated the killing of Jews when this is written in the Quran. You didn’t bother to check.
This is the sample of your usual train of reasoning. You put into my mouth the words I never said and vehemently try to combat the arguments you invented.
This thread isn't long, so I believe you wouldn't overtax yourself to find the proof for your claim:
WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?
I didn't read Quran, I don't know what it says!!! My agrument was (now get focused): All people have sacred (in the broad sense of the word, not neccessarily religious) things the criticizing of which may be considered by them as offense (perhaps that is why, as the legend goes, Americans don't discuss politics, religion and sex with people they barely know - to avoid possible rows). Some religious, ethnic, racial and other groups are especially vulnerable to such offenses and may be violent in response. So there is a choice: one (e.g.) stops saying things about black people's mothers and/or their skin color or one keeps doing it fingering a gun in one's pocket. CH did neither (although they were aware of the quick temper of some of their "target audience") and now whole French society has to pay.
But I am sure you find a way to rebound in your claim that the killers, even if the book they refer to said nothing about the cause of offence, still had reason to kill. Com’on…
I don't know what the killers said/thought about the reasons of their behavior or if they referred to any book. I was trying to make you see the other side of the story (not the killers' one, but the people who may have their feelings hurt). But you rattle on: there was nothing to be offended at. Like I said - beyond redemption.
But the crowd you see there are obviously native Norwegian, and 20 who are obviously not, and who have my highest respect.
Wow! You know by sight how native Norwegians look and can distingush them from, say, native Swedes (who might have been present there) or Norwegians, who have emigrants for some of their ancestors. You have my highest respect.
Yeah I can, I have family in Norway and have been there many times. I can also see it when someone is not from Scandinavia.
Feel free to give me examples from that pictures of why I shouldn't be confident of the fact that they aren't Scandinavians, except for those 20, of course.
Good luck.
Hint, the average Scandinavian is easy to recognise, blond, small eyes, healthy looking.
Gilrandir
02-24-2015, 16:03
Yeah I can, I have family in Norway and have been there many times. I can also see it when someone is not from Scandinavia.
Feel free to give me examples from that pictures of why I shouldn't be confident of the fact that they aren't Scandinavians, except for those 20, of course.
Good luck.
Hint, the average Scandinavian is easy to recognise, blond, small eyes, healthy looking.
I think that "average" doesn't mean "every".
Hint: Ibrahimovic, Henrik Larsson, Doctor Alban, Arash.
I think that "average" doesn't mean "every".
Quite correct, that is what's keeps going wrong, the reflex that assumes that some means all. Pokemons you have got to collect all, do that instead for me please. I got more respect for the dogshit I whipe of my shoes than I have for the islam. If you actually talked more with them instead than about them so would you, hopefully. You don't understand the preassure they have to endure, and you sorry political-correct aren't exactly helpfull.
Gilrandir
02-24-2015, 16:51
Quite correct, that is what's keeps going wrong, the reflex that assumes that some means all. Pokemons you have got to collect all, do that instead for me please. I got more respect for the dogshit I whipe of my shoes than I have for the islam. If you actually talked more with them instead than about them so would you, hopefully. You don't understand the preassure they have to endure, and you sorry political-correct aren't exactly helpfull.
Understood nothing from your post except the underlined. But evidently, I needn't to since the underlined is the crux. I have neutral attitude to islam through having no close contacts with those who worship it. But being more aware of Russian orthodox church, I can understand that coming into contact with some confession may cause aversion you refer to.
Understood nothing from your post except the underlined. But evidently, I needn't to since the underlined is the crux. I have neutral attitude to islam through having no close contacts with those who worship it. But being more aware of Russian orthodox church, I can understand that coming into contact with some confession may cause aversion you refer to.
You don't know how it is, I do because unlike some here I actually know what I am talking about because I know what muslims are going through. They are scared of these guys. And they should be scared, as nobody is going to help them. Respect comes first.
You forgot a large part of your sentence: “you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it” Problem of short memory or bad use of dictionary? So who put words in others’ mouth? Well, in this case feelings of hatred, thanks you very much…
“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”
Just there: 131 “I can't help but wonder at indiscretion (to put it mildly) on the part of the magazine. Faith is a vey touchy business to discuss to say nothing of criticizing or even mocking. Moreover, they should have known that mocking religious feelings of a particularly sensitive (and partly aggressive) congregation which abounds in France may result in retaliation. Thus, if they didn't consider changing the policy they adopted they at least should have taken security measures against possible consequences.”
And there 235: “In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.”
This pointed out, I never said it was your argument but what the terrorists said, and you said they have grounds to be offended. I never (as I knew you will jump on this) said you did. Re-read my sentence: “ You explained that the killers have grounds”. Not said. Dictionary again.
Killers said they are offended because blaspheme (avenge the prophet, as they shouted after the killing), you said killers are right to be offended (oops, have grounds).
“I don't know what the killers said/thought about the reasons of their behaviour” Err, You wrote: “Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims” I think it was more than a guess, but a good explanation of the reason of their crime. Not a good reason, not a real reason, a twisted reason, but a reason.
“Some religious, ethnic, racial and other groups are especially vulnerable to such offenses and may be violent in response” That is racism.
How about we make everything 'don't hurt anyone'. It's just stupid to use violence as an argument. It isn't on the schoolground but you have to grow up up at some point. Just stop being idiots. Give your lady a kiss and accept that the world is never going to be perfect.
CrossLOPER
02-25-2015, 00:52
I don't see immigrants as locals but as guests, guests who are welcome to settle.
So in Fragonyland, how long before they become locals?
So in Fragonyland, how long before they become locals?
Never. They are guests and they are welcome to come here. It's different for the people we share a history with, like people from the colonies for example. But someone who just came here is just that, someone who came here.
I think that "average" doesn't mean "every".
Hint: Ibrahimovic, Henrik Larsson, Doctor Alban, Arash.
Ibrahimovic and the last two sound more like "guests" according to Fragony's metrics.
CrossLOPER
02-25-2015, 04:26
Never. They are guests and they are welcome to come here. It's different for the people we share a history with, like people from the colonies for example. But someone who just came here is just that, someone who came here.
No no no I mean how long do the people, as a group, have to live there before they are all part of glorious pot-smoking piss-receptacle cloggerland?
No no no I mean how long do the people, as a group, have to live there before they are all part of glorious pot-smoking piss-receptacle cloggerland?
In your case untill harvesting time
Gilrandir
02-25-2015, 08:29
You forgot a large part of your sentence: “you have scooped out of there everything that seems to give reasonable grounds for your hatred of it and people who honor it” Problem of short memory or bad use of dictionary? So who put words in others’ mouth? Well, in this case feelings of hatred, thanks you very much…
More than once you expressed your vehement dissatisfaction and disdain of holy books in general and of Quran in particular and pity and scorn of the people who use this opium (according to Marx) to poison their minds. If this (dissatisfaction+disdain+pity+scorn) doesn't amount to hatred than it was a wrong choice of word, but using DDPS every time would have caused even more problems with the sematically-minded you.
“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”
Just there: 131 “I can't help but wonder at indiscretion (to put it mildly) on the part of the magazine. Faith is a vey touchy business to discuss to say nothing of criticizing or even mocking. Moreover, they should have known that mocking religious feelings of a particularly sensitive (and partly aggressive) congregation which abounds in France may result in retaliation. Thus, if they didn't consider changing the policy they adopted they at least should have taken security measures against possible consequences.”
And there 235: “In effect we see that Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims incites violence against christians and the French all over the muslim world.”
And? I repeat (stressing what you evidently have missed): “WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?” No mentioning of Quran (and what it demands from its adherents) in the posts you quoted. And I didn't read Quran so I can't know what it says, remember?
This pointed out, I never said it was your argument but what the terrorists said, and you said they have grounds to be offended. I never (as I knew you will jump on this) said you did. Re-read my sentence: “ You explained that the killers have grounds”. Not said. Dictionary again.
Killers said they are offended because blaspheme (avenge the prophet, as they shouted after the killing), you said killers are right to be offended (oops, have grounds).“I don't know what the killers said/thought about the reasons of their behaviour” Err, You wrote: “Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims” I think it was more than a guess, but a good explanation of the reason of their crime. Not a good reason, not a real reason, a twisted reason, but a reason.
I repeat once again: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERRORISTS SAID. I didn't and don't follow the investigation, I have other cares and sorrows to ruminate on. And I never said about THE KILLERS having grounds/reasons. I have to repeat again: I spoke of MUSLIMS having grounds to be offended (see the underlined above). You deny it. You are not a Muslim, you make your conclusions after talking to some of them (and we don't know how conservative/liberal/religious-minded they are and how representative was your poll) and you generalize that there was no reason for ALL OF THEM to feel offended. Just like you rattled about rioting populaces in the east of Ukraine and their fear of ethnic cleansings and language-based oppression. You failed to present any evidence that anyone was killed/tortured/oppressed because he was ethnic Russian or spoke Russian. Yet you were sure that they have grounds to feel threatened. It seems that you understand what has happened in France as much as you understand what is happenning in Ukraine. Carry on.
“Some religious, ethnic, racial and other groups are especially vulnerable to such offenses and may be violent in response” That is racism.
This is the difference between social, religious, ethnic, racial groups. Is it racism to claim that blacks have black skin? This is their racial peculiarity. The representatives of the said groups have behavioral peculiarities as well. One must consider this while dealing with them. This is political correctness. If one chooses to disregard it, happens exactly what has happened with Charlie Hebdo.
How about we make everything 'don't hurt anyone'. It's just stupid to use violence as an argument. It isn't on the schoolground but you have to grow up up at some point. Just stop being idiots. Give your lady a kiss and accept that the world is never going to be perfect.
I hope that "hurt" in your view includes not only the physical harm, but psychological violence (bullying, intimidation, harassment, derision) as well. If it does I totally agree with you.
CrossLOPER
02-25-2015, 18:00
In your case untill harvesting time
That does not answer the question. I'll ask it again: how long do people have to reside in the land of Fragony before they are considered Fraggonites?
Gilrandir
02-25-2015, 18:04
That does not answer the question. I'll ask it again: how long do people have to reside in the land of Fragony before they are considered Fraggonites?
For Fraggoinfinite time.
That does not answer the question. I'll ask it again: how long do people have to reside in the land of Fragony before they are considered Fraggonites?
I thought I was clear. You can't. You can come here and live here. I prefer it if you don't but that's just me, and you mostly. Polish people drink a lot and cause a lot of accidents. And don't even bother calling emergencie-lines and let someone rot on the street because their numberplates are false and their cars stolen, and they probably gobbed up a biottle of wodka pp
“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”” And where did I say that? I wrote: “You explained that the killers have grounds”. You did, didn’t you?
“More than once you expressed your vehement dissatisfaction and disdain of holy books in general and of Quran in particular and pity and scorn of the people who use this opium (according to Marx) to poison their minds. If this (dissatisfaction+disdain+pity+scorn) doesn't amount to hatred than it was a wrong choice of word, but using DDPS every time would have caused even more problems with the sematically-minded you.” You really have to purchase a dictionary. And read Marx.
I can’t be dissatisfied by a book that has no value at all for me. I am quite aware of what it is written on it, and I carry on "studying" it as an historical fact. I have for sure not a respect in the teaching of “holly” books but the books themselves are just books. And the Quran has no privilege or special attention from me. My records with TR about the Bible are there to prove it, if you want to read them. Again a failed attempt to input some sub-racism in my writings…
Now, about Marx and Religions, well, Marx explained quite openly that Religions are pain-killers (not poison), opium in the XIX century being mainly used for. You can check on a research engine, when you have time. All right, I am doing it for you: Quote is: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
So, that is for dissatisfaction and Marx.
I never really express pity for the followers of any faith, but if to have pity for someone is a bad thing in your world, it is not in mine.
As scorn is concerned, again you are inventing a feeling I haven’t. As mentioned before in another thread, if I had this kind of feelings, I would have to scorn my grand-daughter and my grand-sons and their parents. I strongly disagree with their beliefs; they know it, and nothing more.
So your well-prepare diatribe is just falling flat. Sorry. Nice try, mind you. Where did you find the concept of DDPS?
“And I didn't read Quran so I can't know what it says, remember?” Hey, not my fault if you wrote “Charlie Ebdo by doggedly continuing to insult religious sentiment of muslims”. So I thought, wrongly apparently, you had a clue of what you were speaking about. I do apology for my mistake.
So your point is the killers had grounds but you don’t know which one. Fair enough.
“You generalize that there was no reason for ALL OF THEM to feel offended”: Nope, I went in their texts, in the Quran (well to be fair, I read in French Muslim Scholars analyses and quotes). Now, that for political reasons and for political gains some Islamic Fanatics, after having put millions in the spreading of their version of Islam (and not the Quran), used a non-existent texts in order to justify criminal attacks is not new in politics and history, from the Russian Tsar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the Horse Shoes operation in Kosovo. Pakistanis never heard of CH before, or the Afghans… So it was hard for them to be offended if no one told them to be offended.
“Is it racism to claim that blacks have black skin?”: It is not was you said. You said that blacks have the same reaction as a group. You might be surprise, but black Americans do not have the same reaction than black French, German or African. To attribute reaction to groups based on race is racism. Religions not being a race, it is not racism, but again, all Religions are multiple as multiple than their lecture and their understanding of what is supposed to be the same book (I speak here of the common book with the same larger common denominator i.e. Christianity or Islam).
“This is political correctness” Nope, sociology or/and ethnology.
Kadagar_AV
02-25-2015, 21:09
I'm on Frags side here... Getting a nationality doesnt necessarily mean ethnic people from that nation will consider you as one of them.
How long it takes depends... I guess they are seen as of that nationality when they start to act like it?
IE, Henke Larsson I can say is Swedish(ish, he is still black)... Zlatan Ibrahimovitc or whatever isn't. Henke acts like a Swede in manner, Zlatan doesnt.
We respect Zlatan as a football player just like the french respect the FFL...
CrossLOPER
02-26-2015, 06:34
I thought I was clear. You can't. You can come here and live here. I prefer it if you don't but that's just me, and you mostly. Polish people drink a lot and cause a lot of accidents. And don't even bother calling emergencie-lines and let someone rot on the street because their numberplates are false and their cars stolen, and they probably gobbed up a biottle of wodka pp
So Istanbul is still Konstantinopolis?
Gilrandir
02-26-2015, 08:28
“WHERE DID I SAY THE KILLERS WERE OFFENDED BECAUSE THE QURAN SAID SO?”” And where did I say that? I wrote: “You explained that the killers have grounds”. You did, didn’t you?
Finally. You have made my life easier. I don't have to do much to answer you - just copypaste what I once said. So quote:
And I never said about THE KILLERS having grounds/reasons. I have to repeat again: I spoke of MUSLIMS having grounds to be offended unquote.
If for you KILLERS=(all) MUSLIMS, well, you have to sort things out for yourself.
“More than once you expressed your vehement dissatisfaction and disdain of holy books in general and of Quran in particular and pity and scorn of the people who use this opium (according to Marx) to poison their minds. If this (dissatisfaction+disdain+pity+scorn) doesn't amount to hatred than it was a wrong choice of word, but using DDPS every time would have caused even more problems with the sematically-minded you.” You really have to purchase a dictionary. And read Marx.
My reference to Marx was to justify the usage of "opium". You agreed to it. Poisoning of the whole system is the result of constant abuse of drugs and opium is one. Logically, those who resort to opium poison themselves. To make it clear for you: Marx said nothing about the poison, I metaphorically developed the statement he metaphorically worded.
I never really express pity for the followers of any faith, but if to have pity for someone is a bad thing in your world, it is not in mine.
Pity as a feeling is never a pure one. Being not a psychologist, but having some experience of analyzing fiction texts expressing emotions, I can identify at least two types of it: pity with admixture of compassion and pity with admixture of disgust. It is for you to decide which one you feel, but the latter is definitely a negative emotion.
So your well-prepare diatribe is just falling flat. Sorry. Nice try, mind you.
I'm glad you liked it. And one more positive emotion I got from your post is your picturing myself sorrounded by dictionaries, encyclopedias, selected (or even complete) Marx with a pencil behind my ear making notes, ticking passages in books and sucking hard at another pencil between my teeth trying to invent some excruciating comment to crash you. :study:
I must dissappoint you (which you admit I always did, but I'm afraid I'll do it again), answering you doesn't take such a prominent place on the list of my mustdos. Yet it feels pleasant to know someone is thinking of you so much. Boy, I think I'm beginning to like this elusive communication of ours. ~:flirt: Pinch me, someone.
Where did you find the concept of DDPS?
I invented it myself. ~D Do you like it?
So your point is the killers had grounds but you don’t know which one. Fair enough.
See above on KILLERS=/=MUSLIMS
“You generalize that there was no reason for ALL OF THEM to feel offended”: Nope, I went in their texts, in the Quran (well to be fair, I read in French Muslim Scholars analyses and quotes). Now, that for political reasons and for political gains some Islamic Fanatics, after having put millions in the spreading of their version of Islam (and not the Quran), used a non-existent texts in order to justify criminal attacks is not new in politics and history, from the Russian Tsar and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or the Horse Shoes operation in Kosovo. Pakistanis never heard of CH before, or the Afghans… So it was hard for them to be offended if no one told them to be offended.
Forget about books. It is humans who kill Frenchmen, not books that do. It is important what PEOPLE feel, think and do, not what the BOOKS say. When you realize that, you might have another take on the things. I really don't think you will, but, who knows, you might.
“Is it racism to claim that blacks have black skin?”: It is not was you said. You said that blacks have the same reaction as a group. You might be surprise, but black Americans do not have the same reaction than black French, German or African. To attribute reaction to groups based on race is racism. Religions not being a race, it is not racism, but again, all Religions are multiple as multiple than their lecture and their understanding of what is supposed to be the same book (I speak here of the common book with the same larger common denominator i.e. Christianity or Islam).
While it is not true to claim that ALL representatives of racial, soical, ethnic, religious groups have the same reaction, one can't deny the existence of behavioral patterns typical for the said groups (and expected by the memebers of these groups from other members) in response to similar stimuli.
Gilrandir
11-07-2015, 15:39
Not sure it belongs here but it seems like Charlie Hebdo makes fun of tragedies:
http://www.france24.com/en/20151106-kremlin-slams-charlie-hebdo-cartoons-egypt-crash-sacrilege?ns_campaign=reseaux_sociaux&ns_source=twitter&ns_mchannel=social&ns_linkname=editorial&aef_campaign_ref=partage_aef&aef_campaign_date=2015-11-06&dlvrit=66745
I wonder if they put in their spoke about MH17 crash?
MH17 crash mostly affects the Netherlands, I wouldn't take any offence myself but some might
Satire must be able to be offensive imho, even nasty and cruel
Difficult to judge as they don't show the cartoon.
I just went on French sites and saw them. As usual, not my cup of tea, but really, sacrilege?
However, the charge of sacrilege doesn't exist yet in France.
Then, the ancestor of Charlie mocked the death of the French President and WW2 heroe Charles de Gaulle.
And they don't make fun. The cartoon just highlights the fact that this is an attack following Russian attack on Jihadists.
As the drawing of the drowned kid was highlighting the fact that less than 2 weeks after his death nobody cared anymore, with Hungary re-creating a Berlin wall, without not any real outcry of indignation of the "free" world.
Gilrandir
11-08-2015, 12:43
And they don't make fun. The cartoon just highlights the fact that this is an attack following Russian attack on Jihadists.
As the drawing of the drowned kid was highlighting the fact that less than 2 weeks after his death nobody cared anymore, with Hungary re-creating a Berlin wall, without not any real outcry of indignation of the "free" world.
A cartoon's purpose is always derision/mocking. I'm the last person here to defend Russia in any situation, yet it seems to me that the death of people is not the means to sharpen one's skills in being witty and sarcastic. Why didn't they do that when their staff died?
Greyblades
11-08-2015, 12:46
Russia is thin skinned; who'da thunk it?
As the drawing of the drowned kid was highlighting the fact that less than 2 weeks after his death nobody cared anymore, with Hungary re-creating a Berlin wall, without not any real outcry of indignation of the "free" world.
Why would there be indignation when the comparison to the berlin wall is pathetic?
"A cartoon's purpose is always derision/mocking." NOT in French culture. Charlie is as others of this kind highly political. Cartoon is a misleading word. In French, caricatures is not a "bande dessinée" as "Asterix" or "Lucky Luke" are. For Le Canard Enchainé, Charlie and others, a small drawing is better than 1000 words.
As by Daumier:
http://expositions.bnf.fr/daumier/images/3/018.jpg
http://expositions.bnf.fr/daumier/images/3/023_1.jpg
"Why didn't they do that when their staff died?" They did. Stop assuming....
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-5.jpg
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-20.jpg
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-23.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6w9TFsIQAAiTee.jpg
I can't find the one with the graves and one saying:" Happy New Year, and and good health (the usual sentence in France for new year)", and the other one saying "The cons!!!!!..." (which is milder in French than in English).
"Why would there be indignation when the comparison to the berlin wall is pathetic?" Really? Barbed wires, walls and even armed force at the checked points? But, all right, your opinion.
Magino Line will do (or perhaps not enough bunkers and artillery for your taste), as it is to stop "invaders" to come in.
And you should read the Media just during at least 5 days after the publishing of the picture, it was really a truly and heart-breaking indignation, at least ONE week...
Greyblades
11-08-2015, 13:31
"Why would there be indignation when the comparison to the berlin wall is pathetic?" Really? Barbed wires, walls and even armed force at the checked points? But, all right, your opinion.
Magino Line will do (or perhaps not enough bunkers and artillery for your taste), as it is to stop "invaders" to come in. Actually the only unique feature of the Berlin wall compared to other security borders, aside from the landmines, was the intent of keeping people in as well as out.
And you should read the Media just during at least 5 days after the publishing of the picture, it was really a truly and heart-breaking indignation, at least ONE week... Heart breaking? You have a fragile heart.
"A cartoon's purpose is always derision/mocking." NOT in French culture. Charlie is as others of this kind highly political. Cartoon is a misleading word. In French, caricatures is not a "bande dessinée" as "Asterix" or "Lucky Luke" are. For Le Canard Enchainé, Charlie and others, a small drawing is better than 1000 words.
As by Daumier:
http://expositions.bnf.fr/daumier/images/3/018.jpg
http://expositions.bnf.fr/daumier/images/3/023_1.jpg
"Why didn't they do that when their staff died?" They did. Stop assuming....
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-5.jpg
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-20.jpg
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-23.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6w9TFsIQAAiTee.jpg
I can't find the one with the graves and one saying:" Happy New Year, and and good health (the usual sentence in France for new year)", and the other one saying "The cons!!!!!..." (which is milder in French than in English).
"Why would there be indignation when the comparison to the berlin wall is pathetic?" Really? Barbed wires, walls and even armed force at the checked points? But, all right, your opinion.
Magino Line will do (or perhaps not enough bunkers and artillery for your taste), as it is to stop "invaders" to come in.
And you should read the Media just during at least 5 days after the publishing of the picture, it was really a truly and heart-breaking indignation, at least ONE week...
Pretty sure you will apreciate this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOS9vsccJs
"Heart breaking? You have a fragile heart." Yeap. Nothing I can do about it, when I see dead children, even foreigners.
Greyblades
11-08-2015, 13:57
Dead children? We're talking about hungary's fence not that washed up corpse they found a month or two back.
A fence shouldnt elicit heartbreak in any situation.
As for the kid, you've had access to 100-150 years worth of photographic history your entire life, you'd have to be pretty sheltered to still be so emotionally affected by a picture of a dead body by the time you reach adulthood.
"We're talking about hungary's fence not that washed up corpse they found a month or two back" Nope. That what I wrote: "As the drawing of the drowned kid was highlighting the fact that less than 2 weeks after his death nobody cared anymore, with Hungary re-creating a Berlin wall, without not any real outcry of indignation of the "free" world." I clearly linked the so call indignation of less than 1 week and the lack of reaction towards the building of a fence designed to stop a successful boy to take shelter in Europe.
If the young boy would have succeed to land in Europe, he would have been blocked at the borders...
You want to separate the two topics for understandable reason, but no: It is the same event, and yes, Europe doesn't give a damn of children drowning in the see, or suffering on the road to exile, and the Hungarians were just a little bit earlier than the others.
Now, you might prefer to see Hungarians Border Police Officer pushing back desperate, hungry, sick and crying children, you might think it is a human way to treat other humans, I don't. Don't look when they will be in the snows of Serbia, Bosnia and other outside Europe countries if it makes you feel better. The things you ignore can't hurt you, are they?
And no, I am not sheltered to human suffering, and I hope I will never be. No saying I always do something about it, but I did.
I did when I join the army to protect the ones who can't, I did when I went for Charities, in wars and Vaccination Campaigns.
Yes, I am aware that it is hardly enough.
And I hope you are not able to watch people dying (or dead) without even a pinch.
Greyblades
11-08-2015, 16:56
Correction: i'm only talking about the hungarian fence. I'm not sure what you are talking about but its long lost relevance to what I'm saying.
As for the kid, you've had access to 100-150 years worth of photographic history your entire life, you'd have to be pretty sheltered to still be so emotionally affected by a picture of a dead body by the time you reach adulthood.
:inquisitive:
For someone who is so emotionally affected by the "war on men", it is quite strange to say that actually dead people do not bother you. And it seems quite cold in general, not something I would advertise about myself. Most parents and other normal people are always affected by pictures or even stories of dead children, there is nothing wrong with that even if they were not sheltered.
CrossLOPER
11-08-2015, 18:32
:inquisitive:
For someone who is so emotionally affected by the "war on men", it is quite strange to say that actually dead people do not bother you. And it seems quite cold in general, not something I would advertise about myself. Most parents and other normal people are always affected by pictures or even stories of dead children, there is nothing wrong with that even if they were not sheltered.
This is the internet. Epeen is measured by edginess.
AE Bravo
11-08-2015, 18:44
As for the kid, you've had access to 100-150 years worth of photographic history your entire life, you'd have to be pretty sheltered to still be so emotionally affected by a picture of a dead body by the time you reach adulthood.
You'd have to be pretty sheltered to NOT still be affected by a pic of a dead body, especially a kid.
Greyblades
11-08-2015, 19:08
:inquisitive:
For someone who is so emotionally affected by the "war on men", it is quite strange to say that actually dead people do not bother you. And it seems quite cold in general, not something I would advertise about myself. Most parents and other normal people are always affected by pictures or even stories of dead children, there is nothing wrong with that even if they were not sheltered.
War on men?
I stopped being moved by the idea of dying children when the oxfam/cafod brigades showed up yearly in my primary school's assembly, started snapping thier fingers and saying "every three seconds a child dies of hunger", turned the death of those I dont know from a tragedy to a statistic. Not that it needed help as the sheer scale of the world makes getting worked up over every death becomes both unhealthy and pointless.
Pictures stopped bothering be somewhere between the holocaust and vietnam photos.
I'm sure seeing it in person would disturb me, I am told you can never be prepared for the smell of death, but stories and pictures of death in far off lands do not generally illicit a reaction beyond "this again?"
You'd have to be pretty sheltered to NOT still be affected by a pic of a dead body, especially a kid.
...No... you cant be desensitised by a lack of awareness
AE Bravo
11-08-2015, 21:09
All I'm saying is that if you don't shake your head at the image of a pile of dead corpses or think "****ing hell" to yourself, there might be some issues there.
"I'm not sure what you are talking about but its long lost relevance to what I'm saying.":laugh4: You put yourself in this position dear. I was explaining how "cartoons" work in French media (taking example of the one of the drowned kid published by Charlie to illustrate how tragedy are so easily forgotten in our modern time) then you jump on your "Why would there be indignation" about the building of a fence, very similar to a modernised Berlin Wall.
Then you try the "Heart breaking? You have a fragile heart", obviously NOT speaking of the Hungarian fence, as you added "As for the kid, you've had access to 100-150 years worth of photographic history your entire life".
So, perhaps you are not sure of what I was talking about, but that is your problem to read the subject before to answer it, as all good teachers would tell you, I am quite pretty sure of what you are talking about.
The washed up kid is kinda ironic in hindsight, his father was a human-traficker that always took him to comfort his clients
Gilrandir
11-09-2015, 13:35
"Why didn't they do that when their staff died?" They did. Stop assuming....
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-5.jpg
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-20.jpg
http://media.koreus.com/201501/hommage-charlie-hebdo-23.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6w9TFsIQAAiTee.jpg
I can't find the one with the graves and one saying:" Happy New Year, and and good health (the usual sentence in France for new year)", and the other one saying "The cons!!!!!..." (which is milder in French than in English).
Then I was wrong. Yet in my culture the reaction would be something like the one Russia expressed. Some topics are considered not a subject to satirize about/make fun/mock.
By the way, you went LOL when I mentioned that Russia would have to address the challenge of terrorism once it emroiled into the Syrian conflict and now it is very likely that the Sinai plane was downed by ISIS. Still LOLLing?
Greyblades
11-09-2015, 13:50
...*sigh* Brenus' lack of english language skills strikes again!
with Hungary re-creating a Berlin wall, without not any real outcry of indignation of the "free" world.
I thought you were wondering why people werent indignant over hungary creating a wall. I pointed out that the comparison is pathetic.
When you said this:
And you should read the Media just during at least 5 days after the publishing of the picture, it was really a truly and heart-breaking indignation, at least ONE week...
I thought you were still talking about the wall and by the picture you meant one of these:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6554954-3x2-940x627.jpg
I was under the impression you were being an overdramatic wuss acting like the hungarian wall was the moral equivilent of the berlin wall.
Hence: you have a fragile heart.
As for the rest, I'm sorry if learning about a fresh new massacre week after week for ten years has made it so I dont have to cry in a corner whenever I view a fairly tame picture like the washed up syrian boy..
[QUOTE=Gilrandir;2053669164]Then I was wrong. Yet in my culture the reaction would be something like the one Russia expressed. Some topics are considered not a subject to satirize about/make fun/mock
So what deal with it
...*sigh* Brenus' lack of english language skills strikes again!
I thought you were wondering why people weren't indignant over Hungary creating a wall. I pointed out that the comparison is pathetic.
When you said this:
I thought you were still talking about the wall and by the picture you meant one of these:
I was under the impression you were being an overdramatic wuss acting like the Hungarian wall was the moral equivalent of the Berlin wall.
Hence: you have a fragile heart.
As for the rest, I'm sorry if learning about a fresh new massacre week after week for ten years has made it so I don't have to cry in a corner whenever I view a fairly tame picture like the washed up Syrian boy..
Glass houses...
And no, I don't feel like commenting on the topic, cry me a river. I'm way too badass for all of you. :verycool:
Greyblades
11-09-2015, 15:03
His use of tense is confusing. Bite me.
Strike For The South
11-09-2015, 16:36
All I'm saying is that if you don't shake your head at the image of a pile of dead corpses or think "****ing hell" to yourself, there might be some issues there.
And here is the emotional blackmail encapsulated.
Thank you for being so transparent.
Gilrandir
11-09-2015, 18:20
...*sigh* Brenus' lack of english language skills strikes again!
I thought you were wondering why people werent indignant over hungary creating a wall. I pointed out that the comparison is pathetic.
When you said this:
I thought you were still talking about the wall and by the picture you meant one of these:
I was under the impression you were being an overdramatic wuss acting like the hungarian wall was the moral equivilent of the berlin wall.
Hence: you have a fragile heart.
Let me quote Brenus:
Stop assuming....
You will end up wrong anyway.
Greyblades
11-09-2015, 20:28
You will end up wrong anyway. I suppose you are the one to know what with your uniquely extensive experience in the field of pointless arguments.
AE Bravo
11-09-2015, 21:01
And here is the emotional blackmail encapsulated.
Thank you for being so transparent.
I don't think you know what that means.
Here is the buzzkill encapsulated. "Get off my lawn."
"Still LOLLing?" Yes. Like if Russia wasn't confronted long before to Muslim terrorism!
"*sigh* Brenus' lack of english language skills strikes again!" Ahhh, the good sound of English racism, "you don't even speak English" bits, forgetting they don't. Well, I think someone else answer to this... By the way, English...
Gilrandir
11-10-2015, 12:16
I suppose you are the one to know what with your uniquely extensive experience in the field of pointless arguments.
Pointless? No! Futile? Yes!
"Still LOLLing?" Yes. Like if Russia wasn't confronted long before to Muslim terrorism!
Yet it is the first time that Russia suffered not from nameless terrorists (mostly of Chechen origin). Now the terrorists have a name on them - ISIS. And the more suffering is yet to come.
Do you honesty think ISIS is a threat to Russia, declaring a state is probably the dumbest thing they could have done, there are going to be a lot of tears when Russia takes of it's silk gloves
"Yet it is the first time that Russia suffered not from nameless terrorists (mostly of Chechen origin). Now the terrorists have a name on them - ISIS. And the more suffering is yet to come." I think ISIS gave the perfect opportunity for Putin to come back into Egypt, by the back door. In the mean time, the Syrian recapture one strategic point, if we have to believe news from Russia, which I tend to in this situation as US and EU would be so happy to show if it was a lie.
Point is Russia didn't suffer. Russian did. ISIS can't attack Russia and now, as Fragony pointed out, are probably waiting for incoming retaliations.
As more to come, perhaps, but France was attacked by Muslim terrorists. And they are only really one example of a successful terrorist succeeding his political aim: Gavrilo PRINCIP, and it took all the great willingness of the Central Empires to help him.
ISIS is destined to the bin of History, as soon as great powers will decide the play time is finish.
Gilrandir
11-11-2015, 16:14
Do you honesty think ISIS is a threat to Russia
Apart from inflicting casualties in Syria ISIS can arrange some acts of terror within Russia or to Russians outside it.
I think ISIS gave the perfect opportunity for Putin to come back into Egypt, by the back door.
You mean again sending troops abroad? Russia can't digest what it brew in Syria, so it will hardly extend its Middle-East operation into Egypt as well.
Point is Russia didn't suffer. Russian did. ISIS can't attack Russia and now, as Fragony pointed out, are probably waiting for incoming retaliations.
Russians make the population of Russia, so eventually Russia is a sufferer. But you are probably right in believing that sufferings of a small group of Russians are not a great concern of Russia as a state.
And in terms of retaliation, it is a question who is expecting one - ISIS has been under attack (as Putin claims) so nothing is likely to change for it. It is Russia which is in for more fun.
"It is Russia which is in for more fun." Perhaps, but the attack was made on Egyptian soil, not on Russia's. And ISIS lost grounds in Syria, even according tho BBC as Assad's forces retook (or unlocked) the siege of the Aleppo Airport.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/10/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0SZ15E20151110#XhJdcC0TGfzm7fuw.97
In the same time, Turkey shows the colours:
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkish-military-allegedly-shell-kobane-ypg-and-arabs-advances-strategic-town-1894959234
"Russia can't digest what it brew in Syria" On what news do you base your analyse?
Gilrandir
11-12-2015, 15:52
"Russia can't digest what it brew in Syria" On what news do you base your analyse?
On the fact that 6 weeks after the bombings have commenced Russia is still there and no decisive victory is looming for it in the short run (I bet in the long run either). With the expenditures it has to cover and the ones to keep the pot in Donbas boiling it is unlikely to consider involvement into one more far away country which even doesn't have a Russian military base as a foothold to operate from.
AE Bravo
11-12-2015, 19:32
Russia doesn't need a military base in Syria. When the Shia militias of Iraq, Iran's revolutionary guard, Syrian army, and Kurds reduce IS to a roadside bombing insurgency, Russia can leave no sweat.
"On the fact that 6 weeks after the bombings have commenced Russia is still there and no decisive victory is looming for it in the short run (I bet in the long run either)" Not really facts, more a wishful thinking....
The reality is Assad broke the 2 years siege on an important strategic point, that is quite an achievement in 6 weeks where USA lead coalition bombed now for 2 years without any success.
And due to this advance, the US have to do the same thing with the Kurd against Kobane, and the Saudis can't blocked it...
Putin using US Amy to gain prestige, at the same moment when Europe, the land of Democracy and Freedom is closing the door to Middle-East refugees...
Gilrandir
11-13-2015, 13:21
"On the fact that 6 weeks after the bombings have commenced Russia is still there and no decisive victory is looming for it in the short run (I bet in the long run either)" Not really facts, more a wishful thinking....
The reality is Assad broke the 2 years siege on an important strategic point, that is quite an achievement in 6 weeks where USA lead coalition bombed now for 2 years without any success.
Yet Putin is still there. No blitzkrieg for him. Let's wait and see how long he will endure this snail-like pace of events.
"Let's wait and see how long he will endure this snail-like pace of events." Let's wait as you say. However, still better than NATO... Mind you, not really a difficult task...
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.