View Full Version : France Shoot-Out
No need to comment really as there is only one thing that has nothing to do with it anyway. RIP victims.
Context (http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jan/07/shooting-paris-satirical-magazine-charlie-hebdo).
So far twelve dead at a shooting at Charlie Hebdo's (a satirical newspaper) headquarters. Masked men carrying machine guns were seen entering the building.
Who needs context, it is what it is and that's just about it. There is only one thing that has nothing to do with it.
InsaneApache
01-07-2015, 14:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTobQZ5ZzWk
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 14:24
The "Religion of peace" aint nothing to **** with!!
Muslims do what muslims do... Sad, of course, but true.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 14:34
Warning: Video on the site I link to shows extreme violence.
I don't know what to say... "Barbaric" comes to mind... I dont think I would ever have it in me, shooting an already wounded man, who holds up his hands and pleads for his life.
I wonder if the terrorists take drugs to overcome their own humanity, or if their religious belief just pump them into enough of a frenzy for these kind of actions to take place...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2be_1420632685
You are military, could you do that shot when running, right in his head.
second shooter, I put in ten
Don Corleone
01-07-2015, 15:41
Very sorry to hear of this tragedy. Recriminations can wait. Condolences and prayers for the victims and their families. Very sad.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-07-2015, 16:01
Very sorry to hear of this tragedy. Recriminations can wait. Condolences and prayers for the victims and their families. Very sad.
Tragedies are accidents, this is a massacre.
I'm very sorry that this happened but I cannot help but feel that French Security Services should have seen this coming.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 16:05
They seem to have had police protection... hence the dead policemen...
What should be required to have a free press? Full on SWAT teams and rabbid Rottweilers guarding the premise?
There is only ONE, I say it again, ONE side to blame here. Islam..
Greyblades
01-07-2015, 16:50
Because islam is obviously a single unified and conforming group that have no divergance in opinion or methodology whose members can all be considered culpabale for the actions of a few.
Because islam is obviously a single unified and conforming group that have no divergance in opinion or methodology whose members can all be considered culpabale for the actions of a few.
Actually, when you conrevert to Islam they take out your brains and instead install a chip that makes you subservient to a sattelite that is floating somewhere in space directly above Mecca. They put the receiver in the Ka'aba. Some people have spy chips that enable them to hide their true nature and that's called taqiyya. It's a proven true fact.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 17:33
Because islam is obviously a single unified and conforming group that have no divergance in opinion or methodology whose members can all be considered culpabale for the actions of a few.
That's a stupid argument.
I am well aware that muslims are not all terrorists.. But enough are for me to not want them around me or the people I hold dear. Why? Because **** like this happens when you start letting too many muslims in.
Let them sort out their own ****ed up cultures and religion first, before we let them spread that cancer here in the west.
Yes I am harsh. It's because I have had to many bad experiences with muslims in my life. That's just how it is.
Montmorency
01-07-2015, 17:33
Once again, the problem is not the religion per se of Muslim immigrants, but of their social conservativism.
Ultimately, the most damage done will be through the accelerating regression of our native and relatively-tame right-wings as a direct consequence of contact.
As seen on this forum...
Ya. Of course it isn't simply the islam, leftist intellectuals would be wrong, and there is no arab spring, inconveivable.
Gilrandir
01-07-2015, 17:59
Because islam is obviously a single unified and conforming group that have no divergance in opinion or methodology whose members can all be considered culpabale for the actions of a few.
They have at least two major (Shia and Sunni) and perhaps more minor groups.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 18:01
They have at least two major (Shia and Sunni) and perhaps more minor groups.
You want a cookie, or what are you aiming at there?
Just stating the obvious?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-07-2015, 18:27
That's a stupid argument.
I am well aware that muslims are not all terrorists.. But enough are for me to not want them around me or the people I hold dear. Why? Because **** like this happens when you start letting too many muslims in.
Let them sort out their own ****ed up cultures and religion first, before we let them spread that cancer here in the west.
Yes I am harsh. It's because I have had to many bad experiences with muslims in my life. That's just how it is.
By the same token one might say Catholics are inclined to terrorism because of the IRA.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 18:33
By the same token one might say Catholics are inclined to terrorism because of the IRA.
It is long known that religion is the greatest cause for fanaticism, yes.
I do however find it unfair towards catholicism as of today, to use a nations problem to highlight it, some decades after it was a real problem.
That's really not comparable to the wave of Islamic terror we see all over the world.
IRA didn't try and blow up my fiancée, muslims did. In fact, how often have IRA acted outside of the Irish border?
Very weak argument PVC, I expect better of you.
HopAlongBunny
01-07-2015, 18:52
The Catholics are clearly terrorists: IRA, Crusades, Inquisition (all Iterations)
Not to be confused with the good Christians who simply murdered doctors for carrying out a legal procedure...
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-07-2015, 18:55
It is long known that religion is the greatest cause for fanaticism, yes.
I do however find it unfair towards catholicism as of today, to use a nations problem to highlight it, some decades after it was a real problem.
That's really not comparable to the wave of Islamic terror we see all over the world.
IRA didn't try and blow up my fiancée, muslims did. In fact, how often have IRA acted outside of the Irish border?
Very weak argument PVC, I expect better of you.
They blew up a bunch of pubs in Birmingham - we're talking a real nasty group of people here, really, really, nasty. Blew a 15-year old boy's hand off using a bomb inside a torch - blinded him too.
They didn't go in for suicide because they're Catholics but pretty much anything else was fine.
It's not "Islam" that causes these terrorist attacks any more than it's "Catholicism" that sustained the IRA. Having said that it's a well known fact that some Irish Catholic clergy gave tacit support and shelter to the terrorists during the "troubles".
It's a particular brand of Islam, a particular theological school, that breeds these terrorists. More interesting is that they breed primarily among second and third generation immigrants in Western countries and among the wealthy and elite in the Middle East.
Kralizec
01-07-2015, 19:14
Awful. I hope they catch the perpetrators, and soon.
My condoleances to the victims' families and the people of Paris.
They will be hunted. The lucky one(s) will see a court.
I am Charlie. Never like it before (agreed with the idea, not with the style of the drawings) but Je suis Charlie.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-07-2015, 21:53
It wasn't a very good magazine so far as I know.
I assume this will kill the paper though, that many dead people in the office is going to punch a hole right through the organisation.
So, really, the sad thing is that whatever happens those gunmen probably got what they wanted and they don't care if they live or die.
Papewaio
01-07-2015, 22:04
Absolutely horrible.
I see reports that the local Muslim population is condemning the attack:
"France's five-million-strong Muslim population is Europe's largest.
"I am extremely angry. These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom. This is not Islam and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this," said Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy mosque in the northern Paris suburb of Seine-Saint-Denis." -abc news Australia
I hope the solidarity increases after this.
=][=
Satire is the avenue that allows the man on the street to make barbed political comments on the establishment be it politicians, aristocrats, Royals or religion. Satire is a foundation piece of freedom of speech.
I am Charlie.
rickinator9
01-07-2015, 22:10
This is sad. People aren't even able to express their own opinion these days without getting shot.
I hope this isn't just the final straw for me. I will be voting for the party of Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) in the next parliamentary elections.
Kadagar_AV
01-07-2015, 22:35
They blew up a bunch of pubs in Birmingham - we're talking a real nasty group of people here, really, really, nasty. Blew a 15-year old boy's hand off using a bomb inside a torch - blinded him too.
They didn't go in for suicide because they're Catholics but pretty much anything else was fine.
It's not "Islam" that causes these terrorist attacks any more than it's "Catholicism" that sustained the IRA. Having said that it's a well known fact that some Irish Catholic clergy gave tacit support and shelter to the terrorists during the "troubles".
It's a particular brand of Islam, a particular theological school, that breeds these terrorists. More interesting is that they breed primarily among second and third generation immigrants in Western countries and among the wealthy and elite in the Middle East.
Catholicism has a LOT to answer for. Have you READ me on these boards? I don't dispute that.
It's however completely wrong to liken it to Islam.
This magazine has made satire about catholics and jews... about buddhists and ortodox... Yet it's only those damn muslim fanatics who take offense enough to burn their office, and later kill them.
This really isn't comparable (in this modern time), and I have no idea why you keep up the charade.
Islam is where catholicism was some 700 years ago, sure.
But you know, over here in the western world that was 700 YEARS AGO... We had this whole enlightenment thingy, revolutions, democracy...
They have made it as far as to revolutions, but they seem to end in even worse Islamic **** than previously.
Stop defending stupid people of a murderous religion. Would you so mind.
Kralizec
01-07-2015, 22:58
I hope this isn't just the final straw for me. I will be voting for the party of Geert Wilders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders) in the next parliamentary elections.
Why
Now that I think of it, if you already intend to vote PVV, what would the last straw lead to?
rickinator9
01-07-2015, 23:23
Why
Now that I think of it, if you already intend to vote PVV, what would the last straw lead to?
Wilders cares. The governing parties don't do anything about the threat Islam and the returnees from Syria pose. I believe Wilders would do anything to stop terrorists from returning here. I believe that he would do something about the ungrateful immigrants that became criminals. I believe that he would do something against the cultural enclaves of the "Religion of Peace".
I said voting for Wilders is a consequence of this last straw. I may have worded that incorrectly.
https://i.imgur.com/rFUy24M.jpg
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 01:07
*deleted*
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 01:07
I would love for one of the world leading Imams, to take a woman in the hand (without gloves, mind you), and openly say that he absolutely do NOT wish these french terrorists to get 72 virgins in heaven... And that he absolutely despise attacks on the free word.
Will that happen anytime soon? Nope.
Hence I don't like islam. And hence it's hard for me to accept its followers.
Montmorency
01-08-2015, 01:25
I would love for one of the world's leading atheists to take a child by the hand (with gloves, mind you) and openly say that he absolutely does NOT wish to rape 72 children on Earth...And that he absolutely despises attacks on the free word.
Will that happen anytime soon? Nope.
Hence atheism sucks.
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 02:07
I would love for one of the world's leading atheists to take a child by the hand (with gloves, mind you) and openly say that he absolutely does NOT wish to rape 72 children on Earth...And that he absolutely despises attacks on the free word.
Will that happen anytime soon? Nope.
Hence atheism sucks.
Yeah... Not really comparable mate...
But if asked, I am quite sure many an atheist would be glad to do it, to prove a point. BTW muslim terrorists get 72 virgins, not children, and it's not rape as they get them as wives (their logic, not mine) ...
Regardless, yes, I can totally see atheists do that. I for one would do it without hesitation :)
EDITED: Why would an atheist need gloves to touch someones hand? Last I checked that is an Islamic thing, not wanting to touch women by the hand. Don't read me wrong, an atheist would gladly put on some gloves if it was required for sensible reasons.... But what would those be, really? Outside of an ebola camp?
A pretty disgusting deed, and a very predictable response by some...
As for the cancer analogy, please check how many people die from cancer in the western world every year on average and how many die from islamic terrorism in the same timeframe.
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 02:30
A pretty disgusting deed, and a very predictable response by some...
As for the cancer analogy, please check how many people die from cancer in the western world every year on average and how many die from islamic terrorism in the same timeframe.
That's not what the cancer reference opt at. C'mon, you know better.
A cancer, something rotten in the body of society... Why you need me to spell it out for you?
Islamism can be a rotting disease in society, without it killing as many people as the literal cancer does, no?
Or is your best defense that "Islam don't kill as many people as cancer does!!" If so, do you expect a golfclap, or what? Is that anything ever resembling a defense for Islam? That it kills less people in the western world than cancer does?
That's not what the cancer reference opt at. C'mon, you know better.
A cancer, something rotten in the body of society... Why you need me to spell it out for you?
Islamism can be a rotting disease in society, without it killing as many people as the literal cancer does, no?
Or is your best defense that "Islam don't kill as many people as cancer does!!" If so, do you expect a golfclap, or what? Is that anything ever resembling a defense for Islam? That it kills less people in the western world than cancer does?
No, the question is, if the few people Islam kills rile you up so you have to mention it several times a month, shouldn't the forum be full of posts from you complaining about how we still aren't investing enough money into cancer research?
Why does the minuscule problem attract such an amount of anger while the elephant in the room is just accepted?
Just because cancer doesn't have a personality?
And I'm being rather generous by going with Islam here, others have already mentioned that only a small percentage interprete that religion as a call to kill others. To think that this warrants to call the entire religion rotten is quite a stretch. How many christianist extremist children die every year because their parents refuse to have them vaccinated or refuse blood transfusions etc.?
How many atheist children die because their parents also do not believe in vaccinations? What about all the atheist capitalists who kill 40k germans a year due to sub-standard hospital hygiene that allows multi-resistant germs to prosper?
If less than a hundred dead people a year warrants to call an entire religion rotten then surely all people who participate in capitalist economies are a cancer upon humanity?
KukriKhan
01-08-2015, 03:40
The Text to is I
Montmorency
01-08-2015, 03:45
Yeah... Not really comparable mate...
But if asked, I am quite sure many an atheist would be glad to do it, to prove a point. BTW muslim terrorists get 72 virgins, not children, and it's not rape as they get them as wives (their logic, not mine) ...
Regardless, yes, I can totally see atheists do that. I for one would do it without hesitation :)
EDITED: Why would an atheist need gloves to touch someones hand? Last I checked that is an Islamic thing, not wanting to touch women by the hand. Don't read me wrong, an atheist would gladly put on some gloves if it was required for sensible reasons.... But what would those be, really? Outside of an ebola camp?
The idea is that such a gesture would not only be meaningless, but it would be insulting. It would legitimize both sets of extremists while contributing nothing to the situation.
It's exactly the same logic that has led some Americans to reason that 'if Obama doesn't show us his birth certificate, then he must be the Antichrist.' The truth is, the birth certificate is a complete red herring and those who believe him to be the Antichrist have gone on believing so even after he has stooped to address them.
Now multiply the logic by billions of Muslims, and we come to the point where people are practically demanding that random Muslims personally apologize to them for events that have as much to do with them as they do with the selection of astronauts to board the ISS.
P.S. The gloves are obviously so you don't get your dirty atheist pedophile taint on the poor kid, whom you'll probably abduct and eat as soon as the cameras are off so don't you dare even try it!
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 04:04
Holding a woman in the hand?
Saying they oppose attacks on the free word?
Really.
No, REALLY, you guys chose to go in defensive mode against that? With all kinds of tongue-twisting ways...
How effin hard should it be to accept that women are equal in rights, and that the world is a better place when the press can work without threats or infringements of their (supposedly) rights?
Just what are you defending here?
For crying out loud, let me be in opposition of people who think elsewise. Why? Because they are a CANCER to the world. Does anyone really have an argument against that? Does anyone here actually stand up for these extremist beliefs?
If so we can have an argument about that, till then though... PUH-leaze...
Argh shades of grey like usual... not much changed here at the org :)
What a terrible massacre. The Frenchmen who would not bow to these animals are true heroes.
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 04:18
Argh shades of grey like usual... not much changed here at the org :)
What a terrible massacre. The Frenchmen who would not bow to these animals are true heroes.
What shades of grey?
In my world free press = white.
Kill free press = black.
No shades there, pure black and white colour.
Montmorency
01-08-2015, 04:26
Saying they oppose attacks on the free word?
As expected, the fact that they have been doing that all along means nothing to you. It has to be some big public stunt of abasement, a plea for mercy wrapped up in an apology.
Simply stating, "We disagree with extremism" = "Islam is cancer" to people like you. The fact that you demand more shows that you simply are not to be satisfied.
Kadagar_AV
01-08-2015, 04:44
As expected, the fact that they have been doing that all along means nothing to you. It has to be some big public stunt of abasement, a plea for mercy wrapped up in an apology.
Simply stating, "We disagree with extremism" = "Islam is cancer" to people like you. The fact that you demand more shows that you simply are not to be satisfied.
Huh?
I'd like the muslim leaders in and around the world to clearly state that they do NOT accept attacks on free media. Media should be able to portray Muhammad all they want.
At the very least, I'd like Imams working in western societies to at least acknowledge this very basic aspect of a free press...
Is this to much to ask for?
You say they have already done it... Source, if you so mind? I've heard nothing about that.
I dare you to source that Muhammad paintings or satire is OK according to leading Imams...
CrossLOPER
01-08-2015, 06:34
I'd like the muslim leaders in and around the world to..
Hey? You know what armed fanatics respect the most?
Opinions!!!
A pretty disgusting deed, and a very predictable response by some...
As for the cancer analogy, please check how many people die from cancer in the western world every year on average and how many die from islamic terrorism in the same timeframe.
How many cells are unaffected if you got cancer
edit, at least they caught one, unsurpringly a returnee. Madness that they are allowed to get back.
"I would love for one of the world's leading atheists" Atheism not being a religion, there is no leading atheists. Atheists have no books to follow, no rules to implement, no doctrine to impose.
By the way, the killed cartoonists in France were atheist, they were "lefties", some known anarchists.
They weren't killed because they were lefties so how is that worth mentioning. They were killed because they drew satirical pictures.
Gilrandir
01-08-2015, 08:26
Atheists have ... no doctrine to impose.
How about "be nice to everyone nonwithstanding his/her faith/absence of it"?
a completely inoffensive name
01-08-2015, 10:24
Once again, the problem is not the religion per se of Muslim immigrants, but of their social conservativism.
Ultimately, the most damage done will be through the accelerating regression of our native and relatively-tame right-wings as a direct consequence of contact.
Ultimately, the most damage done will be through the marginalization of people's anger, which only promotes further political polarization. Is blaming Islam correct? No. Is curbing immigration from Islamic countries pragmatic? Probably. We get it, Islam is not monolithic. But the fact is that it is Islamic radicalism which is waging guerrilla warfare on the West, on a much more organized and much larger scale than any other ideology. This is the conflict we have on our hands and this is what is resonating with people.
Is blaming Islam correct? No.
Why exactly
a completely inoffensive name
01-08-2015, 11:02
Why exactly
Because it's not really the Islam that drives them but the socio economic conditions they live in. It was not that long ago the west had plenty of anarchist bombers and terrorists, but their violence was not really due to anarchy philosophy but because of the shit conditions people lived in during the 1800s.
Because it's not really the Islam that drives them but the socio economic conditions they live in.
And what makes you think so, you just decided that?
You say they have already done it... Source, if you so mind? I've heard nothing about that.
Well, you can't exactly hear written words, but maybe if you send him a ticket and a friendly letter, he will come to your house and say it to you in person?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148621-France-Shoot-Out&p=2053625764&viewfull=1#post2053625764
How many cells are unaffected if you got cancer
So you're going to vote for the dutch communist party next
I am sure that somehow makes sense.
You die from cancer because vital organs are affected, not because the whole body is sick. In this case freedom of expression. So it perfectly makes sense to call islam a cancer.
I am sure that somehow makes sense.
You die from cancer because vital organs are affected, not because the whole body is sick. In this case freedom of expression. So it perfectly makes sense to call islam a cancer.
Yes, capitalism is an even bigger cancer, just look up the number of murders committed to enrich oneself. Or just look up the murders committed in biger cities every year. 12 people is pretty much nothing that should scare us all and three people doing it says nothing about all the others. If my neighbor poisons his rich wife to get her money that doesn't mean I'm going to do it as well just because I believe that capitalism is better than communism just like he did.
People protest on the streets over 12 deaths a year in all of Europe. Meanwhile 40k die in German hospitals every year due to infections they got there from bad hygiene. That's 110 people PER DAY on average compared to 12 or so every once in a while. Wouldn't it make more sense to protest against bad hygiene and cost cutting in hospitals first and get enraged over islamism later? How many more lives could be saved that way? Do you always start to tackle the smallest problem first?
Islamist extremists make up a small portion of all muslims which make up a small portion of citizens in western countries, yet somehow they get attraction for their **** like noone else, it's simply completely out of proportion, like we have nothing important to deal with...
What shades of grey?
In my world free press = white.
Kill free press = black.
No shades there, pure black and white colour.
I meant in regards to many of the viewpoints taken as a whole here on the org. It's pretty obvious that killing unarmed journalists is not a good thing.
Just FYI, the police officer that you saw being executed in that video was a Muslim too.
Yes, capitalism is an even bigger cancer, just look up the number of murders committed to enrich oneself. Or just look up the murders committed in biger cities every year. 12 people is pretty much nothing that should scare us all and three people doing it says nothing about all the others. If my neighbor poisons his rich wife to get her money that doesn't mean I'm going to do it as well just because I believe that capitalism is better than communism just like he did.
People protest on the streets over 12 deaths a year in all of Europe. Meanwhile 40k die in German hospitals every year due to infections they got there from bad hygiene. That's 110 people PER DAY on average compared to 12 or so every once in a while. Wouldn't it make more sense to protest against bad hygiene and cost cutting in hospitals first and get enraged over islamism later? How many more lives could be saved that way? Do you always start to tackle the smallest problem first?
Islamist extremists make up a small portion of all muslims which make up a small portion of citizens in western countries, yet somehow they get attraction for their **** like noone else, it's simply completely out of proportion, like we have nothing important to deal with...
Cars kill even more. But a roadaccident is just that, an accident, not an attack on our way of life. Relativate it all you want but surily you should see that it is a stupid comparison. That only a small number of muslims do this doesn't matter either, your average muslim is more concerned about what's for dinner and cheats during rammadan. But islam means subjection to the ideoligy and that is sometning else entirely. Your ordinary muslim is terrified of these guys and the politically correct who try to relativate everything aren't doing them a favour. Kinda selfish.
The (muslim) mayor of Rotterdam says it best, you can probably understand what he says. Comes down to 'if you don't like it here, go, get the fuck out of here, and never come back'
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/01/premier_aboutaleb.html#comments
Cars kill even more. But a roadaccident is just that, an accident, not an attack on our way of life. Relativate it all you want but surily you should see that it is a stupid comparison. That only a small number of muslims do this doesn't matter either, your average muslim is more concerned about what's for dinner and cheats during rammadan. But islam means subjection to the ideoligy and that is sometning else entirely. Your ordinary muslim is terrified of these guys and the politically correct who try to relativate everything aren't doing them a favour. Kinda selfish.
IIRC car accidents are around 5k, and I didn't mention them because they are accidents as you say. Could be reduced by using more public transport though, which would also ease the traffic around here, saving my lungs a lot of the harmful particles I have to inhale every day. Bad hospital hygiene is pure neglect on the other hand. They only happen because doctors find it more comfortable not to disinfect their hands between patients and owners find it cheaper not to isolate new patients as you do in the Netherlands. Rather selfish, isn't it?
The other question is why are we so afraid that Islam will kill us instead of all of the other things that actually do kill us all the time every day? Quite a few of which are also easily preventable with a tad bit of effort put into them. Europe has 600 million people, 12 of them died because of some idiots and now 600 million somehow fear that they will have the same fate if they don't protest and make the lives of some minority miserable? Do you remember when the jews were out to get us? How did that turn out?
IIRC car accidents are around 5k, and I didn't mention them because they are accidents as you say. Could be reduced by using more public transport though, which would also ease the traffic around here, saving my lungs a lot of the harmful particles I have to inhale every day. Bad hospital hygiene is pure neglect on the other hand. They only happen because doctors find it more comfortable not to disinfect their hands between patients and owners find it cheaper not to isolate new patients as you do in the Netherlands. Rather selfish, isn't it?
The other question is why are we so afraid that Islam will kill us instead of all of the other things that actually do kill us all the time every day? Quite a few of which are also easily preventable with a tad bit of effort put into them. Europe has 600 million people, 12 of them died because of some idiots and now 600 million somehow fear that they will have the same fate if they don't protest and make the lives of some minority miserable? Do you remember when the jews were out to get us? How did that turn out?
It isn't about what they are doing but about what we are giving away because we have no answer to it. The only thing that comes to mind is compromise with the circular-reasoning of an F5 tornado. Muslims know it is the islam, and mosques work very closily with the police.
They aren't pokemon you don't HAVE to collect them all unless you are really really into Pokemon.
Why exactly
Islam is the problem, by being extremely backward and evil, just like every religion, something expected from a 1400 old movement created by ill-educated tribesmen.
The problem is, however, what makes those young men take islam so seriously, despite its obvious ridiculousness, and consider it the best way to improve their quality of life.
The reason behind this is class struggle, war-torn states/protectorates and the western anticommunist campaign during the Cold War, that encourage the Arab generations to seek the solution to their problem in religion and not in social revolution.
It isn't about what they are doing but about what we are giving away because we have no answer to it. The only thing that comes to mind is compromise with the circular-reasoning of an F5 tornado. Muslims know it is the islam, and mosques work very closily with the police.
They aren't pokemon you don't HAVE to collect them all unless you are really really into Pokemon.
What are we giving away? What's an F5 tornado? What do muslims know exactly? Collect what? Why? Where? How? If it's not about what they are doing, what is it about then? What is what about and what is it anyway?
What is what about and what is it anyway?
Told you what it is. Why don't you tell me what it isn't. You can always tell when someone doesn't know what he's talking about, reflexes. The urge to look at the islam with western eyes. These jihadi's are as welcome as the inquisition for normal muslims but because of political correctness that prevents one to call a spade a spade they have nothing to turn to for help. A comforting squeeze in the shoulder and a pet on the back is just about the most they will ever get from people who insist that the islam is just another religion.
Told you what it is. Why don't you tell me what it isn't. You can always tell when someone doesn't know what he's talking about, reflexes. The urge to look at the islam with western eyes. These jihadi's are as welcome as the inquisition for normal muslims but because of political correctness that prevents one to call a spade a spade they have nothing to turn to for help. A comforting squeeze in the shoulder and a pet on the back is just about the most they will ever get from people who insist that the islam is just another religion.
So muslims are afraid of their own religion? Just tell them that they can convert to christianity then. And you just called a spade a spade, why do you say it can't be done? Are you on some weird trip again where you equate Islam only with the violent islamist terrorism and imply that muslims do not follow Islam or something like that?
So muslims are afraid of their own religion? Just tell them that they can convert to christianity then. And you just called a spade a spade, why do you say it can't be done? Are you on some weird trip again where you equate Islam only with the violent islamist terrorism and imply that muslims do not follow Islam or something like that?
Converting to christianity, good idea if you insist on getting harrased or worse. And I don't equate MUSLIMS with islam, they are other things, how many times must I say the exact same thing? Once again, a muslim doesn't necesarily submits to islam. Only a few submit to islam. That doesn't change what the islam is.
Islam is the problem, by being extremely backward and evil, just like every religion, something expected from a 1400 old movement created by ill-educated tribesmen.
The problem is, however, what makes those young men take islam so seriously, despite its obvious ridiculousness, and consider it the best way to improve their quality of life.
The reason behind this is class struggle, war-torn states/protectorates and the western anticommunist campaign during the Cold War, that encourage the Arab generations to seek the solution to their problem in religion and not in social revolution.
Maybe it's just a free pass for the ugliest of desires? Very handy if you are into these things. Rape whatever you want, kill whoever you want, or both.
Converting to christianity, good idea if you insist on getting harrased or worse. And I don't equate MUSLIMS with islam, they are other things, how many times must I say the exact same thing? Once again, a muslim doesn't necesarily submits to islam. Only a few submit to islam. That doesn't change what the islam is.
So just like catholics aren't christians then.
So just like catholics aren't christians then.
What do I care what catholics are, it's much more interesting that they ought to be compared. You see, somehow somewhere, they serve for an excuse. can you explain that for me please. All religions can fuck theirselves as far as I am conserned, why not ask yourself why the the islam is so special, good luck with that excemption on your moral compass.
Leet Eriksson
01-08-2015, 17:05
What do I care what catholics are, it's much more interesting that they ought to be compared. You see, somehow somewhere, they serve for an excuse. can you explain that for me please. All religions can fuck theirselves as far as I am conserned, why not ask yourself why the the islam is so special, good luck with that excemption on your moral compass.
Because you have no idea what Islam or Muslims are. What the heck is this:
Converting to christianity, good idea if you insist on getting harrased or worse. And I don't equate MUSLIMS with islam, they are other things, how many times must I say the exact same thing? Once again, a muslim doesn't necesarily submits to islam. Only a few submit to islam. That doesn't change what the islam is.
Who made you arbiter here Grand Mullah Fragony?
CrossLOPER
01-08-2015, 17:13
What do I care what catholics are, it's much more interesting that they ought to be compared. You see, somehow somewhere, they serve for an excuse. can you explain that for me please. All religions can fuck theirselves as far as I am conserned, why not ask yourself why the the islam is so special, good luck with that excemption on your moral compass.
What do I care what African slave traders are, it's much more interesting that they ought to be compared. You see, somehow somewhere, they serve for an excuse. can you explain that for me please. All slavers people can fuck theirselves as far as I am conserned, why not ask yourself why the the white people are so special, good luck with that excemption on your moral compass.
See I can do it, too.
Who made you arbiter here Grand Mullah Fragony?
I would love for people like Frags to convert to Islam, and then act like they think Muslims should act.
Leet Eriksson
01-08-2015, 17:24
I would love for people like Frags to convert to Islam, and then act like they think Muslims should act.
I'd love it too, maybe he'd get out of his basement and go see people in public places, maybe learn new things about whats outside.
My sometimex girlfriend ie from Teheran, I can only repeat.
What do I care what catholics are, it's much more interesting that they ought to be compared. You see, somehow somewhere, they serve for an excuse. can you explain that for me please. All religions can fuck theirselves as far as I am conserned, why not ask yourself why the the islam is so special, good luck with that excemption on your moral compass.
Islam is only special to you, because as Eriksson says, you have your own illusion of what it is.
If you could just stick to everyone else's definition of what islam is, maybe you'd realize that we do not see it as special.
Leet Eriksson
01-08-2015, 18:06
Islam is only special to you, because as Eriksson says, you have your own illusion of what it is.
If you could just stick to everyone else's definition of what islam is, maybe you'd realize that we do not see it as special.
Whats sad isn't really the loss of freedom of speech as it were, it is here to stay and everyone knows this, but people shouldn't die for what they say or do, and as much as bleeding heart as this sounds, you really cannot predict attacks from genuinely unstable people. Also there is this:
http://rt.com/news/220819-attack-mosque-france-paris/
Which just exacerbates the situation, and causes unnecessary tension.
Also i can't believe i'm saying this, but i am Muslim. A french friend of mine showed me the covers of CH magazines, they were offensive, i was offended, but should i do anything about it? hell no, what are words or cartoons going to do to me? nothing. It is their right to freedom of speech, what these terrorists did is wrong and is very much against the spirit of Islam, i kind of understand some of these covers despite their offensives, but one of them had the Prophet Muhammed being threatened by a knife and called an infidel by a terrorist, its almost surreal.
“How about "be nice to everyone nonwithstanding his/her faith/absence of it"?” Great for me. It is what atheism is.
“Just tell them that they can convert to christianity then” Nope, they can’t. Death penalty.
Gilrandir
01-08-2015, 19:23
“How about "be nice to everyone nonwithstanding his/her faith/absence of it"?” Great for me. It is what atheism is.
So there is a basic tenet of atheism, after all, isn't there?
Among other news I heard that the perpetrators' families have been detained. Is it true? If it is, does it mean the police are taking hostages?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
01-08-2015, 19:56
Islam is only special to you, because as Eriksson says, you have your own illusion of what it is.
If you could just stick to everyone else's definition of what islam is, maybe you'd realize that we do not see it as special.
As garbled as Frag's posts on this matter are he is essentially correct - Islam is both a religious faith and a political movement. The former is compatible with Western values whilst the latter isn't because it requires the state to be ruled by Muslims under Sharia Law.
This idea is in the Koran, that Muslims should be in charge, and so far as that goes there is something fundamentally different about Islam's foundational document vs Christianity's.
Judaism sort of sits in a middle ground - whilst it is a political movement it isn't an expansionist one or one that prevents submission to a higher political authority (such as a the Persian or Roman Emperors).
It's like Christians who believe non-Christians go to heaven - it's not in the Bible and there's no scriptural justification for it without a lot of complex theological wrangling.
"I heard that the perpetrators' families have been detained." The 2 suspects are orphans... So, what families? And no, French Police doesn't take hostage.
"So there is a basic tenet of atheism, after all, isn't there?" Of course there is one: not believing in supra-natural. After this, nothing is required...
It's like Christians who believe non-Christians go to heaven - it's not in the Bible and there's no scriptural justification for it without a lot of complex theological wrangling.
What about people who never heard of the message such as most of the Mayas, Aztecs and so on?
Kralizec
01-08-2015, 22:24
It's happening. Marine le Pen is using this attack to promote her own style of socially acceptable (or so they think), middle-class xenophobia for the petit-bourgeois. Won't be long before her dad mentions it to their traditional electorate who are more attracted to vintage racism.
I wasn't really familiar with Charlie Hebdo before this massacre, but I'm pretty sure the victims would have had a problem with being used by these miscreants.
Montmorency
01-08-2015, 23:01
PVC's point about political Islam is correct and mirrors my own, which put another way interprets political Islam as a reactionary ideology with a religious vehicle.
Furthermore, Islam is popular among these reactionaries because it gives them an identity in opposition to the big bad West (i.e. Christianity).
Leet Eriksson
01-08-2015, 23:25
This idea is in the Koran, that Muslims should be in charge, and so far as that goes there is something fundamentally different about Islam's foundational document vs Christianity's.
This is wrong, there is our own "Render unto caesar" hadith on this, its also in the Qur'an, and considered binding. But basically if you're in a non-muslim country their rule of law applies.
This is also both supported by Azhar, and Saudi clerics, and were brought over to france and broadcast on middle eastern TV with regards to the burqa ban they had instated.
Don Corleone
01-08-2015, 23:50
I wonder how many people died of drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning or suicide in Paris yesterday.
The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is despair. Radical Islam is a cover for people like this. The illusion of separate self is too strong... too strong in them, too strong in all of us.
Leet Eriksson
01-09-2015, 00:37
I wonder how many people died of drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning or suicide in Paris yesterday.
The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is despair. Radical Islam is a cover for people like this. The illusion of separate self is too strong... too strong in them, too strong in all of us.
With the details released of the criminals, they seem to have a past criminal record, apparently they have planned for this for years. This is exactly like elliot rodgers or breivik, unpredictable and completely off their rockers.
I wonder how many people died of drug overdoses, alcohol poisoning or suicide in Paris yesterday.
The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is despair. Radical Islam is a cover for people like this. The illusion of separate self is too strong... too strong in them, too strong in all of us.
They weren't all that sorry for that cop they finished of with a single bullet while running, good training.
a completely inoffensive name
01-09-2015, 04:13
And what makes you think so, you just decided that?
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Do you believe that anarchist philosophy is inherently violent?
Montmorency
01-09-2015, 04:20
It is what it is. There's only one thing that had nothing to do with the Haymarket Square bombing.
Judging by the number of head-in-the-sand muslim apologists in this thread, Europe deserves what's coming. Massacres like this one will only increase in frequency, especially with Europe's clear choice of pacification of these savages instead of confronting this disgusting ideology head on.
My heart aches for the good old Europe, but folks, it is your responsibility to recognize that the problem exists, and take steps to solve this problem. If in your eyes there's no problem, then so be it: you will only have yourselves to blame later on.
Any religion or ideology is only as good as its followers. It doesn't really matter what the dogma says, it doesn't matter how alike or different one religion is from the others. The only thing that truly matters is what the adherents of a given religion do. That's all. And actions truly speak for themselves.
Don Corleone
01-09-2015, 04:48
They weren't all that sorry for that cop they finished of with a single bullet while running, good training.
Yes, that was a horrific and soulless act. I'm not asking for mercy for "them". I'm asking for mercy for us all.
You used the metaphor of cancer earlier. You're more right than you apparently realize. Remember, cancer is the organism's own cells, acting aggressively in discord within the organism, not a foreign invader acting within a host.
Montmorency
01-09-2015, 05:31
Very interesting move by Al-Sisi in Egypt. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/07/paris-terror-shooting-al-sisi-epochal-speech/21390881/)
Yes, that was a horrific and soulless act. I'm not asking for mercy for "them". I'm asking for mercy for us all.
You used the metaphor of cancer earlier. You're more right than you apparently realize. Remember, cancer is the organism's own cells, acting aggressively in discord within the organism, not a foreign invader acting within a host.
Most fundies are third generation who were born here, with all the chances we have.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? Do you believe that anarchist philosophy is inherently violent?
Yeah and is doesn't answer anything. Why, exactly, does something that is the same thing everywhere it is doesn't have anything to do with it?
Judging by the number of head-in-the-sand muslim apologists in this thread, Europe deserves what's coming. Massacres like this one will only increase in frequency, especially with Europe's clear choice of pacification of these savages instead of confronting this disgusting ideology head on.
My heart aches for the good old Europe, but folks, it is your responsibility to recognize that the problem exists, and take steps to solve this problem. If in your eyes there's no problem, then so be it: you will only have yourselves to blame later on.
Any religion or ideology is only as good as its followers. It doesn't really matter what the dogma says, it doesn't matter how alike or different one religion is from the others. The only thing that truly matters is what the adherents of a given religion do. That's all. And actions truly speak for themselves.
But if that means we should expell all muslims from Europe because two of them turned into killers, then we should also expell all christians because some of them shot up an abortion clinic. The more dangerous branches of islam are usually already under surveillance by the police and you won't find many Europeans who actually like them or even apologize for hate speech in mosques. But random girls in hijabs aren't terrorists and there's no need to send them anywhere. I'm not entirely sure what your or Fragony's problem is with our attitude. The only thing we don't want is for us to turn to the same barbarism and uncivilized behavior in response to such attacks. Is that wrong?
HopAlongBunny
01-09-2015, 12:27
The Daily Beast gives a good sketch of the shifting parameters around "freedom of speech"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/08/politicians-only-love-journalists-when-they-re-dead.html
The Paris attack was brutal, criminal and ugly; it was hardly the greatest assault on free speech in Western Democracies.
Was it really, people who warned against this have been demonised, rediculed, and even killed by leftists.
Was it really, people who warned against this have been demonised, rediculed, and even killed by leftists.
And people who warned against Ebola have been demonised, ridiculed and killed by Ebola, stuff happens, nothing we can do.
Don Corleone
01-09-2015, 14:44
Most fundies are third generation who were born here, with all the chances we have.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately missing my point. In many ways, you're making my case for me.
The young fellow who shot up Sandy Hook in Newtown used video games as his cocoon, to maintain his dearly held illusion of separate self. Wall street bankers use private jets. The fellows in Paris on Wednesday used Islam.
The tool is the tool. It did not cause the mayhem, it enabled it. The "cause" in all of these cases was the despair felt in these human beings... or if you will, these elements of THE human being. Their lack of ability to identify, to empathize, to express and receive compassion... This is what is destroying US right now. You're myopically fixating on one symptom.
Let me put it to you this way Frag... child sex trafficing is rampant throughout Europe and North America. It impacts and destroys the lives of far more people than radical Islam "in the West". What are we doing about that? And that's just a bigger symptom than radical Islamism. There are bigger ones yet.
I believe humanity is at a nexus. I don't know what comes next. But I do know that as long as I look at any human being and see something other than myself, I'm part of the problem.
Actions are abhorent and evil. Human beings themselves never are.
What you don't get is that I make a difference between ordinary muslims and extremists. I am perfectly fine with muslims, but not with islam.
What you don't get is that I make a difference between ordinary muslims and extremists. I am perfectly fine with muslims, but not with islam.
Noone else thinks that the word islam = extremism
That's your problem, you're using different terms than everyone else around you.
It's not that others are stupid, it's that you have your very own terminology that only you use, at least on this forum.
For everybody else, your ordinary muslims also follow islam, but a different interpretation of it than the extremists.
The argument about which one is the correct interpretation can be had, but only if all Americans hand in their guns for the militia. :sweatdrop:
Noone else thinks that the word islam = extremism
That's your problem, you're using different terms than everyone else around you.
It's not that others are stupid, it's that you have your very own terminology that only you use, at least on this forum.
For everybody else, your ordinary muslims also follow islam, but a different interpretation of it than the extremists.
The argument about which one is the correct interpretation can be had, but only if all Americans hand in their guns for the militia. :sweatdrop:
Everybody else must be wrong then, and I am the last sane person alive.
Ane ffs is there something inw the water you drink, I couldn't make the destiction between muslims and islamists more obvious, go fuck a stepherd wife.
Seems that they werd killed in a jewish supermarket. Experts allready know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam. They don't say why but that's normal, they never do
CrossLOPER
01-09-2015, 18:23
Any religion or ideology is only as good as its followers.
Catholics, IRA bombers, abortion clinic bombers, child molesters BLAH BLAH BLAH. I don't even have to try with you, since you yourself are putting zero effort into your own arguments.
Was it really, people who warned against this have been demonised, rediculed, and even killed by leftists.
Nine years I have been here, and you still don't know how to spell that word.
Everybody else must be wrong then, and I am the last sane person alive.
Ane ffs is there something inw the water you drink, I couldn't make the destiction between muslims and islamists more obvious, go fuck a stepherd wife.
So I just explained/assumed that we agree on the basic concepts but not on the wording, and you reply by saying I still don't get it and add something that is apprently meant to be an insult? Do you not like the idea that we might actually agree on something or is it the idea that you're not the only sane person here that gets to you?
Seems that they werd killed in a jewish supermarket. Experts allready know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam. They don't say why but that's normal, they never do
And then just back to normal...
The two suspects for the attack were shot in/near a printing "factory", the supermarket thing was related, some acquaintance of theirs took hostages there and was shot as well.
Also: http://video.foxnews.com/v/3976707999001/radical-imam-anjem-choudary-on-charlie-hebdo-attack/?#sp=show-clips
:creep:
And also lol: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3466/Perceptions-are-not-reality-Things-the-world-gets-wrong.aspx
End of also. ~;)
Kagemusha
01-09-2015, 20:27
Three terrorists less. Put down like rabid dogs by French police. Good riddance. If one take actions like these idiots, they should not expect anything else and i can only hope that in the future other police forces will act accordingly when time comes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30752239
Catholics, IRA bombers, abortion clinic bombers, child molesters BLAH BLAH BLAH. I don't even have to try with you, since you yourself are putting zero effort into your own arguments.
Nine years I have been here, and you still don't know how to spell that word.
It's perfectly fine, and if it isn't so what, I am Dutch, english isn't my native language
Papewaio
01-09-2015, 22:27
What you don't get is that I make a difference between ordinary muslims and extremists. I am perfectly fine with muslims, but not with islam.
Sir you are missing an ist.
Muslims adhere to Islam.
The nutcases and/or terrorists are termed Islamists.
Islamists are militant fundamentists not mainstream.
Using Islam instead of Islamists is confusing and is the same as saying Catholic instead of IRA.
CrossLOPER
01-10-2015, 01:42
Sir you are missing an ist.
Muslims adhere to Islam.
The nutcases and/or terrorists are termed Islamists.
Islamists are militant fundamentists not mainstream.
Using Islam instead of Islamists is confusing and is the same as saying Catholic instead of IRA.
See:
It's perfectly fine, and if it isn't so what, I am Dutch, english isn't my native language
Pretty hard to have a coherent argument when you have a problem like he has.
oh ouchski, that really hurtski
Leet Eriksson
01-10-2015, 09:32
http://imgur.com/a/zd5rl/
Arabic publications, cartoons in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo.
I am in good company, professor Hans Jansen says the exact same thing as me. I don't how far you get with google translate.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/01/hans_jansen_-_de_nieuwe_heldhaftigheid.html#comments
Hans Jansen is a great Arabist, but he's kinda lost it the last few years.
EDIT: For example,
Islam has a weapon that destroys all trust between muslims and non-muslims: so-called "taqiyya", the right to lie when it's for the Islamic cause.
original Dutch: De islam heeft een wapen dat alle vertrouwen tussen moslims en anderen vernietigt: de zogeheten taqiyya, het recht om te liegen wanneer dat in het belang is van de islam.
Taqiyya is a rather obscure Shi'ite concept that has mostly been used historically in India among that minority living under either a Sunni or a Hindu ruler.
People just don't like what he says. Ask a question and he will answer it without being afraid to hurt anyones feelings.
Or you could also just ignore what I posted, and come up with this statement that doesn't say anything at all. That's cool too.
Or you could also just ignore what I posted, and come up with this statement that doesn't say anything at all. That's cool too.
Can't do as I don't know, I am unlike Hans Jansen not an expert on these things. That is why I am glad there are people like Hans Jansen who know just about everything about what he talks abput. All I got to offer is what I parrot, and what I can see for myself. If it is the same thing everywhere it must be the same thing everywhere. Farmer's logic and yes I know that's Dunglish.
edit, chew on this https://fubarbaar.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/anjem-choudary-british-radical-cleric-muslims-do-not-believe-in-freedom-of-speech/
They don't even deny it, so why do you lot do?
Leet Eriksson
01-10-2015, 14:36
edit, chew on this https://fubarbaar.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/anjem-choudary-british-radical-cleric-muslims-do-not-believe-in-freedom-of-speech/
This guy is a fraudster that doesn't even speak for a tiny minority of Muslims. I hope he isn't your official islamic pope though Fragony, oh wait he probably is considering you live in an alternate reality on a parallel earth.
Also this guy was busted drinking and watching nudie mags.
this guy was busted drinking and watching nudie mags.
I believe you immediatly.
People like this are what normal muslims are terrified of, and what 'we' excuse. I know they are as welcome as the inquisition, but they are still allowed to spread their poison.
Leet Eriksson
01-10-2015, 15:07
I believe you immediatly.
People like this are what normal muslims are terrified of, and what 'we' excuse. I know they are as welcome as the inquisition, but they are still allowed to spread their poison.
Well yeah as long as he doesn't incite, but this guy has been holding positions contrary to other Islamic Scholars see and has been called out on it before, he sure serves as a useful mouthpiece for scaremongering idiots though.
I'm almost surprised why fascists like him and other anti-immigration outfits haven't declared an official alliance yet.
CrossLOPER
01-10-2015, 15:10
oh ouchski, that really hurtski
PRAISE MOTHERLAND ВОДКА СУКА СУКА. блядь.
I know they are as welcome as the inquisition, but they are still allowed to spread their poison.
Kinda like your Geert friend.
Knda like your Geert friend.
How predictable, I don't vote on Geert Wilders eastblock squarehead.
At Leet Erikson, I know all that, even shared your cartoons on Facebook. Even had to explain to my former hippie mom that she's overreacting.
edit, chew on this https://fubarbaar.wordpress.com/2015/01/09/anjem-choudary-british-radical-cleric-muslims-do-not-believe-in-freedom-of-speech/
They don't even deny it, so why do you lot do?
You didn't notice that I posted a video about a page ago where he was interviewed by Hannity? I wasn't sure how to comment it because they're both not very sympathetic, but Hannity actually manages to come out slightly ahead. Choudary is incredibly strange, he talks about how adulterers should be killed and then puts up some weird fake smile. If you think I agree with him or think his views are harmless, then you are deluding yourself.
Gilrandir
01-10-2015, 16:38
Three terrorists less. Put down like rabid dogs by French police. Good riddance. If one take actions like these idiots, they should not expect anything else and i can only hope that in the future other police forces will act accordingly when time comes.
So do you wish to return capital punishment for such dogs? What about European tolerance, value of human life and hope that the culprits might reform with time?
You didn't notice that I posted a video about a page ago where he was interviewed by Hannity? I wasn't sure how to comment it because they're both not very sympathetic, but Hannity actually manages to come out slightly ahead. Choudary is incredibly strange, he talks about how adulterers should be killed and then puts up some weird fake smile. If you think I agree with him or think his views are harmless, then you are deluding yourself.
I don't think you do
Kagemusha
01-10-2015, 22:19
So do you wish to return capital punishment for such dogs? What about European tolerance, value of human life and hope that the culprits might reform with time?
In extreme cases of crimes against humanity. I do not have anything against use of capital punishment never have had. There are limits to tolerance and rehabilitation, in some cases it is pointless. Maybe some others have faith for everyone. I dont.
In extreme cases of crimes against humanity. I do not have anything against use of capital punishment never have had. There are limits to tolerance and rehabilitation, in some cases it is pointless. Maybe some others have faith for everyone. I dont.
Treating him humanily is probably the worst thing that ever happened to that Breivik character. There are things worse than death, simply being disregarded.
wow, Paris is peanuts, Boko Haram (supposedly) killed 2000 in Bara, Nigeria.
There is only one thing that has nothing to do with it.
edit: LOL at German lefties, anti Pagedo demo with je suis Charlie signs. No you idiots, you are not. How confused can you be.
"Paris is peanuts, Boko Haram (supposedly) killed 2000 in Bara," Different political aim.
In Paris obscurantist murderers (first pair) killed atheists in order to claim the right to control what can be said. It is a clear political message of a religious movement going against the French Constitution. You did note they didn't refer to anything else than the offense of drawing a picture. The second pair of scum bags just killed Jews because they are Jews.
By the way, you can see that all Media failed to mention the murdered journalists were atheists, involve heavily in the fight against religious obscurantism.
And, if you want a proof that Atheism is not a religion, there is not appeal from a Atheist Community leader to the Atheist Community to keep calm as there is not Atheist Community, so no leader.
Boko Haram is ethnically cleaning a peace of land, in a Yugoslav sense of Ethnicity (based on Religions, not on real ethnicity).
From Abdennour Bidar, Philosoph
Dear Muslim World,
I am one of your distant sons who observes you from the outside and from afar – from this country, France, where so many of your children live today. I look at you with the strict eyes of a philosopher nourished since childhood both by the taçawwuf (Sufism) and by Western thought. I am observing you therefore from – great image in the Koran - the isthmus between the two seas of East and West !
And what do I see ? What can I see better than others, undoubtedly exactly because I am looking at you from far off, with the advantage of more objective looking at you thanks to the distance ? I see you, you my dear muslim world, in a miserable state of suffering which causes me infinite sadness, but which renders my judgment as a philosopher even more severe, more harsh ! Why ? You ask me why ? Because I see you creating a monster which claims to call itself the Islamic State and which some prefer to give the name of a demon : Daesh. And the worst is that I see you losing – losing your time and your honour - in your refusal to recognize that this monster is born of you, of your own errancy, of your own contradictions, of your own discrepancy between the past and the present, and of your own interminable incapacity in finding your own place in human global civilization.
What in fact are you saying in the face of this monster ? You are shouting : “It’s not me!”, “It’s not Islam !”. You are denying that the crimes of this monster are committed in your name (#NotInMyName). You rebel against the idea that the monster has usurped your identity, and of course you are right in doing so. It is essential that you thus proclaim, loud and clear, in the face of the world that Islam denounces this barbarity, and that Islam as religion and civilization must not be mixed up with “Islamism”. But all these proclamations of innocence and difference are not enough ! Far from it ! Because you are taking refuge in reactionary self-defense without taking, above all, the responsibility of self-criticism. You are satisfied merely to be outraged, although this moment could have been an historical opportunity to question yourself ! The most crucial time for the deepest, hardest, self examination ! But instead of that, instead of taking your own responsibility, you only accuse : “You, Westerners, and you, all the enemies of Islam, stop associating us with this monster ! Terrorism is not Islam, not the real Islam, not the good Islam that speaks not of War, but of Peace !”
I hear the cry of revolt which is rising in you, oh my dear Muslim World ! And I do understand it, and I share it. Yes, of course you are right, like each one of the other great sacred inspirations of the world, throughout its history, Islam has created Beauty, Justice, great meanings, spiritual and ethical virtues, and has brilliantly enlightened million human beings along the mysterious path of existence… Here in the West, and in each of my books, I am involved in a battle, so that this profound wisdom of Islam - and the profound wisdom of all religions – be never lost, neither forgotten nor scorned ! But from my distant position, I also see something which you do not see… And which inspires to me a question – “the” great question : why has this monster stolen your face ? Why has this appalling monster chosen your face and not that of another ? It is because in reality, that behind this monster, there is hidden an immense problem, which evidently you are not able to face, to confront yourself. Yet you will end up to be able to find the courage to do so...
This problem is that of the roots of evil. Where do the crimes of this so-called “Islamic State” come from ? I shall tell you , my friend. You will not be pleased with what I have to say, but it is my work as a philosopher. The roots of this evil which has stolen your face are within you yourself, the monster has come from your own innards — and whence will appear many other monsters, even worse than this one, as long as you will hesitate to admit that it is caused by as your own illness and diseases, and as long as you will delay to attack this internal roots of evil !
Even for the Western intellectuals – my collegues – it is difficult to see ! For the most of them, they have so far forgotten what is the power of religion – its great power for better or worse, its great power on life and death – that they often tell to me : “No, the problem of the Muslim World is not Islam, it is not religion, but politics, history, economics, etc.” They have no recollection at all, of the fact that religion may be the heart of a human civilization, its complex (creative and terrific) heart ! And they are also too “secularized” to understand the new obviousness in this beginning of 21ST century, that the future of humanity will occur not only by the resolution of the financial crisis, but essentially by the resolution of the spiritual crisis without precedent which involves our humanity in its entirety. Will we, from all over the planet, know to unite in order to confront this fundamental challenge ? The spiritual nature of man has an horror of emptiness, and if we, all humans together of all civilizations, are unable to find anything new with which to be replenish this void, it will be tomorrow replenish by religions more and more maladjusted to present times – and these obsolete forms of spirituality will, like Islam today, begun to produce monsters.
I see in you, oh my dear Muslim World, immense forces ready to rise and to contribute to this worldwide effort to find a spiritual life for this open new century ! Despite the gravity of your illness, there is within you an extraordinary multitude of women and men who are ready to reform Islam, to reinvent its genius beyond its historical and outmoded forms, and thus to participate in the total renewal of the rapport which humanity has maintained until now with his gods ! In my works I address all these, both Muslims and non Muslims, who collectively dream of a spiritual revolution ! To give them, with the words of a philosopher, confidence in that which they see as a glimmer of hope !
But there are not enough men and women of the Muslim faith who look to the future, and their struggle for a new spiritual way of life has not yet enough force. All of these, whose lucidity and courage I salute with admiration and support, have rightly seen that it is the general state of the profound sickness of the Muslim World which explains the birth of terrorist monsters which have names like Al-Qaida, Jabhat Al-Nostre, Aqmi or so-called “Islamic State”. They have well understood that these are only the more visible symptoms of an immense sick body, of which the chronic illnesses are the following : powerless in establishing lasting democracies which really and definitely recognize the complete right of conscientious freedom towards the religious dogmas ; chronic difficulties in improving the rights of women concerning equality, responsibility and freedom ; the inability to sufficiently separate political power from the controlling religious authority ; the incapacity to institute respect, tolerance and a true recognition of religious pluralism and of religious minorities.
Could all this be the fault of the West ? How much precious time are you still going to waste, oh my dear Muslim World, by the use of this mediocre accusation in which you yourself no longer believe, and behind which you hide by continually lying to yourself ?
Since the 18th century in particular, it has become time to confess that you have been incapable to meet the challenge of the West. You either have taken refuge in an infantile and mortifying fashion in the past, with the dark regression of Wahhabism which continues to wreak devastation almost everywhere within your frontiers – a Wahhabism that you spread from your holy places in Saudi Arabia like a cancer which comes from your very heart itself ! Or you have followed the worst elements of the West, in producing like it nationalisms and a modernism which are caricatures of modernity – I am talking about consumer society, inhuman jungle of free market economy, and also about this technological development which has no coherence with its religious archaism and which makes of your extremely wealthy “elite” of the Gulf a consenting victim of the worldwide sickness which is the worship of this false God called Money.
What is admirable in you today, my friend ? What has remained in you that is worthy to gain the respect of other people and other religions on Earth ? Where are your wise men, and have you any wisdom to offer the world ? Where are your great men and women ? Who are your Mandelas, who are your Gandhis, who are your Aung San Suu Kyi’s ? The new Nobel prize Malala Yousafzaï is one of your daughters but it is impossible for her to be accepted and to live in her own country ! Where are your great thinkers whose books were obligatory reading throughout the entire world as during the ancient time when the Arab and Persian mathematicians and philosophers made reference from India to Spain ? In reality you have become so weak behind the certitude which you display about yourself… You do not know who you are anymore, nor where you are going, and that in itself makes you not only wretched but also aggressive... You persist in not listening to those who call to you to change by freeing yourself at last from the domination that you have given religion over all aspects of life.
You have chosen to consider Mohammed as prophet and king. You have chosen to define Islam as a political, social and moral religion, prevailing like a tyrant not only over the state but also all over civilian, moral and social life, as well on the street and in the house and even on the interior of every consciousness. You have chosen to believe and to impose that Islam wants to say submission whereas the Koran itself proclaims that “there are no constraint in religion” (La ikrâha fi Dîn). You have made its call to freedom into an Empire of Constraints ! How can a civilization betray to this extent his own sacred text ? I say that the hour has come for the Islamic civilization, to replace all the laws, invented by generations of theologians, by instituting this spiritual freedom given by the Koran to each human being – this spiritual freedom that is with no doubt the most sublime and the most difficult of all kinds of freedom !
Large numbers of voices, which you do not want to hear, are raised today in the Oumma, denouncing this taboo of an authoritative and indisputable religion… To the extent that too many believers have so internalized a culture of submission to tradition and to “masters of religion” (imams, muftis, chouyoukhs, etc.) that they don’t understand someone who, like me or other free thinkers, other free believers, speak to them of spiritual freedom, and when we speak to them of their personal choice towards the “pillars” of Islam. All this constitutes to them a “red line” so sacred that they dare not grant their own conscience the right to question ! And there are so many families where this confusion between spirituality and servitude is encrusted from a young age in their minds and where spiritual education is so poor, that all that concerns religion remains something that one does not talk about !
However, this, quite obviously is not imposed by the terrorism of some mad fanatic troops embarked on by the so-called “Islamic State”. No, this problem goes infinitely deeper ! But who wants to listen ? There is a silence across the Muslim World, and in the western media one listens to specialists on terrorism who daily aggravate the general short-sightedness! Oh my dear friend, do not delude yourself into believing that when one is rid of the Islamic terrorism, that Islam will have solved all its problems ! Because all that I have just called to mind – a tyrannical, dogmatic, literalist, male chauvinist, conservative and regressive religion - is too often the ordinary Islam, the every-day Islam, which suffers and causes the suffering of so many consciousnesses, the Islam of an outdated past, the Islam deformed by all those who abused it politically, the Islam who ends again and again by hushing up all the “Arab Springs” and to hush up also the voices of its young who are asking for something different. So when are you going to at long last make this Revolution happen so that in societies and consciousnesses will definitely associate spirituality and freedom ?
In your immense territory there are of course islands of spiritual freedom : the families who practice an Islam of tolerance, personal choice, in-depth spirituality ; places where Islam still gives the best of itself, a culture of sharing, of honour, of knowledge seeking, and a spirituality in search of this sacred/ultimate place where human being and the supreme reality, that Koran calls Allâh, can meet. There is in the Muslim countries, and everywhere in Muslim communities worldwide, strong and free consciousnesses. But they are condemned to live their freedom without recognition of their true rights, at their own risk and peril faced with community controls or even at times faced by the religious police. Never, even for an instant, do they have the right recognized by the “Official Islam” of the dignitaries, to say : “I choose my own Islam”, “I have my own connection with Islam”. On the contrary, “Official Islam” sternly lay down that “the doctrine of Islam is unique” and that “strict obedience to the pillars of Islam is the only righteous way” (sirâtou-l-moustaqîm).
This refusal of the right of freedom as regards to religion is one of the roots of evil of which you suffer, oh my dear Muslim World ! One of the dark stomachs where for some years now, monsters with frightening faces grow that are set free all over the world. Because this “Religion of Iron” imposes upon all your societies an unbearable violence. It has enclosed too many of your girls and boys in a cage of good and evil, of lawfulness (halâl) and of unlawfulness (harâm) which no-one chooses but under which everyone suffers. It imprisons willpower, it conditions minds, it impedes or hinders all choice of personal life. In too many of your regions, you still associate religion and violence – against women, against the “bad believers” / “unbelievers”, against the Christian or other minorities, against thinkers and all free spirits, against rebels, whereby this religion and this violence ends up being confused, by the most unbalanced and the most fragile of your sons, as the monstrosity of the jihad war !
Therefore please, no more pretending that you are surprised by the demons of the so-called “Islamic State” which have taken on your face ! The demons and the monsters only steal faces that are already deformed by too many grimaces ! And if you want to know how to stop giving birth to such monsters, I will tell you. It is very simple and at the same time very difficult. You need to start by the complete reform of all the education that you give your children, in each one of your schools, each of your places of learning and power. Reform them by leading them according to the universal principles (even if you are not alone in their transgression or persisting in ignorance) : freedom of consciousnesses, democracy, tolerance and right of citizenship in your countries for all the diversity of visions from all over the world and all beliefs, equality of sexes and female emancipation of all masculine guardianship, critical approach of religion in your universities, and the same right in literature and the media. You can’t retract now, you can’t do less that all that ! It is the only way for you to end giving birth to such monsters, and if you don’t do it, you will soon be devastated by their power of destruction.
Dear Muslim World… I am only a philosopher, and as usual there are those who say that a philosopher is a heretic. However, I seek only to let the light shine anew – it is the name which you gave me that inspires me thus, Abdennour, “Bearer or Herald of the Light”. I would not have been so severe in this letter if I did not believe in you. As we say in French, “qui aime bien châtie bien” = he who loves with all his heart, chastises with all his heart. And on the contrary, all those who are not so severe towards you today – who want to victimize you -, are not rendering you a real service ! I believe in you, I believe in your contribution in making our planet of tomorrow a universe more humane and at the same time more spiritual. Salâm, may peace be with you.
"Paris is peanuts, Boko Haram (supposedly) killed 2000 in Bara," Different political aim.
In Paris obscurantist murderers (first pair) killed atheists in order to claim the right to control what can be said. It is a clear political message of a religious movement going against the French Constitution. You did note they didn't refer to anything else than the offense of drawing a picture. The second pair of scum bags just killed Jews because they are Jews.
By the way, you can see that all Media failed to mention the murdered journalists were atheists, involve heavily in the fight against religious obscurantism.
And, if you want a proof that Atheism is not a religion, there is not appeal from a Atheist Community leader to the Atheist Community to keep calm as there is not Atheist Community, so no leader.
Boko Haram is ethnically cleaning a peace of land, in a Yugoslav sense of Ethnicity (based on Religions, not on real ethnicity).
That's true I guess
Gilrandir
01-11-2015, 13:14
Feeling sorry for what has happened in France, 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.
Feeling sorry for what has happened in France, 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.
Self-consorship, no way. Go in even harder. Screw that Je suis Charlie crap, you aren't if you don't mock islamists even more. My deepest respect for the Arab cartoonists Leet Erikson posted, balls like churchbells.
edit, the only apropiate reaction when Theo van Gogh was mutually respect by an enricher of our culture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOS9vsccJs
Gilrandir
01-11-2015, 13:42
Self-consorship, no way. Go in even harder. Screw that Je suis Charlie crap, you aren't if you don't mock islamists even more.
Then do not complain when you get what you got.
Then do not complain when you get what you got.
That works both ways. The west is going to get tired of this at some point, you can only go so far, that point hasn't been reached yet but they sure are doing a good job of getting there.
At that point I will be at the side of moderate muslims btw.
Gilrandir
01-11-2015, 14:18
That works both ways. The west is going to get tired of this at some point, you can only go so far, that point hasn't been reached yet but they sure are doing a good job of getting there.
Since it was not the first accident of the kind (and with this particular magazine too) it was quite sensible to introduce some security measures in the building, no?
Since it was not the first accident of the kind (and with this particular magazine too) it was quite sensible to introduce some security measures in the building, no?
Accident? What accident, was there an accident, I heard of no accident. What would be sensible is simply not having islamists here so that we can just live in peace with eachother, the French used to have a perfect solution called the oubliette. The guiliotine is too much honour.
http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/01/de_schaamteloze_meelopers_in_d.html#comments
first video.
Leftist people know, for a fact, that it has nothing to do with islam.
Bur maybe, pretty maybe, it really does.
ediit, linking doesn't work, first video at geenstijl.nl, livestreams paris.
press that button, abd show them that there really just happens to be something more powerfull than Allah, it only has to be done once before they get the message.
"Then do not complain when you get what you got." S I feel offended but this. Can I kill you? Or will take some caution? I feel offended by poeple pretended a man went on the wing-horse to Paradise, can I start to kill Muslims? It offends my atheism, deeply. Can I kill all the one who offend me?
Leet Eriksson
01-11-2015, 23:58
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613488,00.html
"We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It really makes me laugh," Bernard Holtrop, whose pen name is Willem, told the Dutch centre-left daily Volkskrant.
"Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place,"
He added: "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."
Dude knows where they stand.
Also "Willem stressed that Charlie Hebdo must continue to publish. "Otherwise, (the Islamists) have won."
Keep making fun of dumb fascists Charlie Hebdo.
Since it was not the first accident of the kind (and with this particular magazine too) it was quite sensible to introduce some security measures in the building, no?
Perhaps you fail to understand how central satire (even bad satire) and other criticism is to western society and political landscape? Perhaps it is slightly different in Ukraine. Also they had policemen guarding the building and access to the building was controlled be a pass code. How much more security do you think a magazine publisher would require and receive?
Leet Eriksson
01-12-2015, 00:18
Perhaps you fail to understand how central satire (even bad satire) and other criticism is to western society and political landscape? Perhaps it is slightly different in Ukraine. Also they had policemen guarding the building and access to the building was controlled be a pass code. How much more security do you think a magazine publisher would require and receive?
The terrorists got in by threatning one of the people working there (who had her daughter at the time with her) to let them in. So yeah its not so much a failure of anyone or anything, just really bad timing.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/news/picoftheday/1.2534649
in particular:
14835
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4613488,00.html
"We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It really makes me laugh," Bernard Holtrop, whose pen name is Willem, told the Dutch centre-left daily Volkskrant.
"Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place,"
He added: "We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends."
Dude knows where they stand.
Also "Willem stressed that Charlie Hebdo must continue to publish. "Otherwise, (the Islamists) have won."
Keep making fun of dumb fascists Charlie Hebdo.
I like how they think. I'll excuse the pope though as I honestly think he is a really good man.
Gilrandir
01-12-2015, 12:00
Perhaps you fail to understand how central satire (even bad satire) and other criticism is to western society and political landscape? Perhaps it is slightly different in Ukraine. Also they had policemen guarding the building and access to the building was controlled be a pass code. How much more security do you think a magazine publisher would require and receive?
"Then do not complain when you get what you got." S I feel offended but this. Can I kill you? Or will take some caution? I feel offended by poeple pretended a man went on the wing-horse to Paradise, can I start to kill Muslims? It offends my atheism, deeply. Can I kill all the one who offend me?
You have misunderstood me. Nothing was further from my intentions than justifying the murders. Yet there are some considerations which were somehow conspicuous to people when they offered their vision on situation in Ukraine and which they fail to see now.
A little more than a year ago some people here said that bad moves by the new Ukrainian government in Feburary and March were enough to make Russian-speakers in the East of the country feel frightened and insecure and to make Russia feel threatened and likely to be cheated of its vested interests. They said that the Ukrainian government was stupid enough to start poking the bear with a stick, so it's no wonder the bear got angry.
Now let's see what has happened with the magazine.
It is a matter of common knowledge that there are some provinces of human spiritual life which some (groups of) people consider sacred. Consequently, mocking them might make the corresponding layer of society humiliated, disgusted and outraged. One's freedom of speech ends where another person's freedom (of faith, of feelings) starts. If you disregard this principle, be not suprised of the reaction you provoked. The editorial staff know that one of groups, whose faith tenets and persons are targeted by it, contains excessively aggressive individuals. The conclusion should have been: one can't go about insulting religious views of an aggressive minority without some kind of repercussion to come. It looked like poking a lion (cheetah, hyena, black widow spider - pick any animal you associate the terrorists with) with a stick. If the staff had realized it, it should have definitely taken excessive security measures or have changed the attitude to what/who it mocked.
Another issue that has so far escaped attention here is who is to blame in it.
Superficially, it's the islamists/jihadists/muslems....
But, as Master Brenus teaches us, let's see who benefits most. I see three possible beneficiaries:
1. All kinds of nazis in Europe and in France especially. It is one more chance for them to say: "We told you so" and enjoy more electoral support from the population.
2. Euroskeptics, especially in GB, who are likely to press on with measures limiting entrance/immigration to EU.
3. Russia. For it what has happened is a chance for:
a) distraction of Europe's attention from what it has done and is still doing in Ukraine.
b) appeal to Europeans to ally with it in a fight against the common enemy (i.e. the world terrorism) and aspiration to again appear on one side of the barricades with the western world from which it (personifying in Putin) has been so exhibitory excluded in Brisbane.
Montmorency
01-12-2015, 12:49
A false comparison.
that's kinda funny when it comes from you, Captain Relativation SPEAKS
Rhyfelwyr
01-12-2015, 14:08
This CNN article sums up my feelings on the issue. (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/opinions/kohn-free-speech-responsibility/index.html)
The attack was sick and depraved and there is no justification for it whatsoever. At the same time, I do not agree with the material in these Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Their stuff is about shock value - deliberately intended to be offensive and non-constructive. It is a gross abuse of freedom of expression and it would be well within the bounds of traditional Western ideals of free speech to ban such material as obscene or as hate speech - you can cry about PC-stifling and Sharia and Big Brother all you like, but its all nonsense because we've always said that some stuff it just not acceptable. I expect the vast majority of those around the world who struggled for free speech, and many who do so today, would agree with me in this.
And regardless of whether or not they have the legal right to publish such stuff, there is the question of whether it is morally right to do so. I don't agree with Islam but at the same time I don't go out of my way to make a mockery of Muslims' beliefs in the most outrageous and disrespectful ways, and I think that to do so would be morally wrong.
Of course, none of this excuses this atrocity. I am not Charlie Hebdo, but my thoughts and prayers are with the families of its staff and all those who were the victims of this terrorism.
Montmorency
01-12-2015, 14:46
Have you actually seen the images?
Rhyfelwyr
01-12-2015, 15:35
Have you actually seen the images?
If I haven't been misled in my Google search, they include naked pictures of Mohammed showing his genitals etc, and images of leading Christian characters engaged in sexual acts. That last one was so shocking I can't even bring myself to type out exactly who and what it involved.
I really hope that people do not become so polarized as to convince themselves that this sort of stuff somehow represents Western values of free expression, or that it is acceptable in mainstream Western culture. I hope that it never is.
I deplore this loss of innocent life to Islamic terrorism, but I can't support what Charlie Hebdo does.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-12-2015, 15:59
If I haven't been misled in my Google search, they include naked pictures of Mohammed showing his genitals etc, and images of leading Christian characters engaged in sexual acts. That last one was so shocking I can't even bring myself to type out exactly who and what it involved.
I really hope that people do not become so polarized as to convince themselves that this sort of stuff somehow represents Western values of free expression, or that it is acceptable in mainstream Western culture. I hope that it never is.
I deplore this loss of innocent life to Islamic terrorism, but I can't support what Charlie Hebdo does.
Nobody is asking you to support it -- merely tolerate its presence for those adults who do.
I have never checked out the websites of NAMBLA or the Aryan Nation, and were I to do so I suspect it would be with stunned incredulity and a strong dose of nausea. Nevertheless, Freedom of Speech requires that they have a right to speak about their particular brand of filth. ACTING on it, or specific incitement of violent civil disobedience, changes it to a "clear and present" danger and makes it actionable.
I rather imagine that neither you or I would find the Hebdo brand of "journalism" personally valuable -- I certainly have not tossed even one sou in their direction -- but they have their right to speak.
I condemned the use of public funds for Serrano's "piss Christ" and I find the theme of Ontiveros' cartoons regarding the Holy Father a bit annoying, but both artists are perfectly within their rights to make such artistic statements. Nor was my faith shattered by reading The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons. I enjoyed the novels as such and moved on. However offensive or contrarian these depictions may have been, they simply cannot come between me and my faith.
I do not dispute that what Charlie Hebdo printed was offensive -- I rather think that that was their intent. Find it offensive, condemn it, call for civility, counter-attack IN KIND -- all such responses would be reasonable. To respond with violence is abhorrent.
To me, it also suggests some quality of fear. Why do so many radicalized Muslims allow their faith to be challenged by the statements of a non-believer? For, unless it is a true challenge to your faith, how can it harm you? If you have the courage of your own convictions -- a real faith -- then the maunderings of the unenlightened are irrelevant. However, if you fear for your own sense of faith, perhaps you will lash out -- in fear -- to prevent yourself from thinking and fearing more.
Just musing a bit....
What Fragony seems to forget here is that Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing magazine.
Rhyfelwyr
01-12-2015, 16:37
Nobody is asking you to support it -- merely tolerate its presence for those adults who do.
I have never checked out the websites of NAMBLA or the Aryan Nation, and were I to do so I suspect it would be with stunned incredulity and a strong dose of nausea. Nevertheless, Freedom of Speech requires that they have a right to speak about their particular brand of filth. ACTING on it, or specific incitement of violent civil disobedience, changes it to a "clear and present" danger and makes it actionable.
I rather imagine that neither you or I would find the Hebdo brand of "journalism" personally valuable -- I certainly have not tossed even one sou in their direction -- but they have their right to speak.
I disagree that they have a right to publish what they do. I do not know about France, but in the UK and the USA we have clauses which prohibit obscenity in public material; in the UK at least, this is extended to laws against material which is grossly offensive, corrupts public morals, or that outrages public decency. Apparently Charlie Hebdo has had frequent clashes with the French authorities because they illegally glamorized drug consumption, so the French government's defence of its anti-religious material seems ironic to me.
Originally, free speech was at heart about allowing people to express genuine political/religious/personal beliefs. It was never intended to allow for the distribution of such horrific and morally outrageous material with no other purpose than to offend. These concepts are of course subjective, but they stand in law and in moral principle nonetheless.
I condemned the use of public funds for Serrano's "piss Christ" and I find the theme of Ontiveros' cartoons regarding the Holy Father a bit annoying, but both artists are perfectly within their rights to make such artistic statements. Nor was my faith shattered by reading The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons. I enjoyed the novels as such and moved on. However offensive or contrarian these depictions may have been, they simply cannot come between me and my faith.
I do not dispute that what Charlie Hebdo printed was offensive -- I rather think that that was their intent. Find it offensive, condemn it, call for civility, counter-attack IN KIND -- all such responses would be reasonable. To respond with violence is abhorrent.
To me, it also suggests some quality of fear. Why do so many radicalized Muslims allow their faith to be challenged by the statements of a non-believer? For, unless it is a true challenge to your faith, how can it harm you? If you have the courage of your own convictions -- a real faith -- then the maunderings of the unenlightened are irrelevant. However, if you fear for your own sense of faith, perhaps you will lash out -- in fear -- to prevent yourself from thinking and fearing more.
Just musing a bit....
I never agreed with this line of thinking, that somehow strong objections to blasphemy come from a place of fear. "P*** Christ" or the Charlie Hebdo cartoons showing obscene images of Muhammad and Jesus don't provide any sort of intellectual challenge to faith. If anything, all they serve to do is reinforce the idea that all 'non-believers' are vapid and degenerate.
As I said earlier, violence is a totally unacceptable response. But I'm not going to start saying I am Charlie Hebdo. Let's face it, if Charlie Hebdo said they vomit on the support of the Queen and the Pope and apparently anyone who doesn't share their fairly extreme views, then they will no doubt vomit on a Protestant fundie like me. My thoughts are still with them because they have lost good friends and family to brutal killers, but they were always straight talking in saying who they stood with and so I won't put on a charade either. I mourn the loss of innocent life, but I don't condone what Charlie Hebdo does.
Gilrandir
01-12-2015, 16:39
I have never checked out the websites of NAMBLA or the Aryan Nation, and were I to do so I suspect it would be with stunned incredulity and a strong dose of nausea. Nevertheless, Freedom of Speech requires that they have a right to speak about their particular brand of filth.
I rather imagine that neither you or I would find the Hebdo brand of "journalism" personally valuable -- I certainly have not tossed even one sou in their direction -- but they have their right to speak.
I condemned the use of public funds for Serrano's "piss Christ" and I find the theme of Ontiveros' cartoons regarding the Holy Father a bit annoying, but both artists are perfectly within their rights to make such artistic statements.
Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.
CrossLOPER
01-12-2015, 17:52
Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.
So? Don't be insulted.
rory_20_uk
01-12-2015, 18:38
If things can not be said that might offend someone, obviously nothing ends up being said.
Then one has to take a decision on what is the "culture of the land" and base things on this arbitrary judgement - we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.
If everyone is part of the same culture, regardless of their ethnicity, then this shouldn't be too much of an issue. When this is not the case problems occur.
~:smoking:
Even not one day! It didn’t even one day for the ones to come and say they deserved what happened.
“Superficially, it's the islamists/jihadists/muslems” I though you were a believer in new by youtube. The killer of Jews posted a video of him telling he killed in the name of Islam. The others were shouting Allah U’akbar, so the doubts are quite lifed in this case.
“Euroskeptics” All of them French born, so…
“Russia” as shown by the Ukraine Intelligence Service thanks to a message in social media they were the only one to see?
“it is morally right to do so.” So, like the jihadists, you decide what is moral or not?
“I don't go out of my way to make a mockery of Muslims' beliefs in the most outrageous and disrespectful ways, and I think that to do so would be morally wrong.” Why? Their belief can be ridiculed, as others beliefs were by Charle Hedbo, political included. Why do think Religions should be spared?
“I do not know about France” Well, it might be a shock, it is a right France had even during the Monarchies, i.e. Cardinal de Mazarin having sex with the Queen. News for you: offense of blaspheme doesn’t exist in France. So I can say what I what about all supra-naturel creatures and theirs followers and their fairies tales.
“Originally, free speech was at heart about allowing people to express genuine political/religious/personal beliefs.” Nope, Freedom of speeches was conquered with weapons and blood to allow the ones without right and voice to stand-up. Religion(s) being part of the oppressive forces, it is natural to attack them. Once upon a time it was Immoral to thing Maria was not a virgin...
However, in this case, you have to notice that religious people being hurt by atheists are in their feeling, when atheists hurt by Religious people are dead.
“but they stand in law and in moral principle nonetheless.” Nope, only by the law based on the common good and a social contract.
“If anything, all they serve to do is reinforce the idea that all 'non-believers' are vapid and degenerate.” So, why kill them? Mohamed was married (more than once), had sex, so where is your problem with him having genitals?
“who doesn't share their fairly extreme views” Nope. One (survivor) said he vomit on the one pretending to be their friends when they did all what they could before to shut-down the Hebdo.
“I mourn the loss of innocent life” Excepted they are not so innocent, were they?
“Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.” Having to be censured, accepting to be censured, lead you to dictatorships and Inquisition, and not the Dragon Age one.
“we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.” The last one is a crime, not the first one. Not any more, or not yet as it looks some want to go back to the Middle Ages, or this matter, the Dark Ages.
Rhyfelwyr
01-12-2015, 21:59
Even not one day! It didn’t even one day for the ones to come and say they deserved what happened.
Who said that?
“it is morally right to do so.” So, like the jihadists, you decide what is moral or not?
Erm... no. I said that aside from the legal issue, we can question whether or not such publications are moral. We are all entitled to our personal opinion on that point.
“I don't go out of my way to make a mockery of Muslims' beliefs in the most outrageous and disrespectful ways, and I think that to do so would be morally wrong.” Why? Their belief can be ridiculed, as others beliefs were by Charle Hedbo, political included. Why do think Religions should be spared?
What, what? You make so many assumptions about what I believe, talk about putting words into my mouth. I do not think religions deserve any particular special treatment, I believe in being respectful to peoples opinions whether they are religious/political/personal, or whatever. It's about basic decency.
“I do not know about France” Well, it might be a shock, it is a right France had even during the Monarchies, i.e. Cardinal de Mazarin having sex with the Queen. News for you: offense of blaspheme doesn’t exist in France. So I can say what I what about all supra-naturel creatures and theirs followers and their fairies tales.
I didn't mention any laws about blasphemy in particular. France has laws against hate speech, promoting racism, and various other restrictions on free speech, does it not?
“Originally, free speech was at heart about allowing people to express genuine political/religious/personal beliefs.” Nope, Freedom of speeches was conquered with weapons and blood to allow the ones without right and voice to stand-up. Religion(s) being part of the oppressive forces, it is natural to attack them. Once upon a time it was Immoral to thing Maria was not a virgin...
However, in this case, you have to notice that religious people being hurt by atheists are in their feeling, when atheists hurt by Religious people are dead.
"Nope" to what? You didn't really contradict what I said. Unless you are trying to say that religion is always inherently oppressive and thus should not be freely expressed as other forms of belief would.
“but they stand in law and in moral principle nonetheless.” Nope, only by the law based on the common good and a social contract.
Restrictions on free speech exist in writing in the laws of every country that has free speech. Unless you are somehow saying that you see all the restrictions placed on free speech by the French government to be illegitimate.
“If anything, all they serve to do is reinforce the idea that all 'non-believers' are vapid and degenerate.” So, why kill them? Mohamed was married (more than once), had sex, so where is your problem with him having genitals?
What do you mean "why kill them"? Obviously (from the fact that I repeatedly condemned the killings as inexcusable) I don't think they should have been killed, for the basic reason that killing is morally wrong.
And as a non-Muslim, I don't particularly care whether or not people draw Mohammed. My problem is when people go out of their way to offend Muslims, apparently to the extent of picturing a revered figure in obscene/offensive/humiliating images. You shouldn't try to offend people just for shock value, because that is not a very nice thing to do. Is that so difficult to understand?
“who doesn't share their fairly extreme views” Nope. One (survivor) said he vomit on the one pretending to be their friends when they did all what they could before to shut-down the Hebdo.
Expressing sympathy in the face of a terrorist atrocity doesn't mean people are somehow being two-faced because they clashed with Charlie Hebdo in the past over their publications. It is possible to disagree with them without saying they should be killed for it.
“I mourn the loss of innocent life” Excepted they are not so innocent, were they?
Obviously, they did not deserve to be gunned down in cold blood.
What a clown. (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesuisnico-trends-sarkozy-weaves-front-paris-rally-161250684.html#IaMm5hF)
Rhyflewyr is right, don't take the right of free speech for granted. We are one of the older EU members, but a year ago, when a student made a facebook post with a pun concerning the food pasticcio and Father Paisius (a famous deceased monk), he was immediately arrested for violating our laws about blasphemy.
Strike For The South
01-12-2015, 23:22
At the end of the day, these men represent nothing. They come from the same criminally insane element that is responsible for taking innocent life 9 times out of 10. All this attack points to is the fragility of life. Automatic weapons and dirty bombs make it easy for disgrunteld young men to kill a lot of people. Youtube and wordpress make it easy for them to be filled with hate. The tragedy is not islam but hoplessness.
It's becoming quite clear that muslims in France are beginning to feel the same sort of institutionalized rascism that blacks in America do. A disgrunteld underclass may just be something France is forced to live with.
Kralizec
01-12-2015, 23:56
At the end of the day, these men represent nothing. They come from the same criminally insane element that is responsible for taking innocent life 9 times out of 10. All this attack points to is the fragility of life. Automatic weapons and dirty bombs make it easy for disgrunteld young men to kill a lot of people. Youtube and wordpress make it easy for them to be filled with hate. The tragedy is not islam but hoplessness.
It's becoming quite clear that muslims in France are beginning to feel the same sort of institutionalized rascism that blacks in America do. A disgrunteld underclass may just be something France is forced to live with.
Every society has an underclass of some sort, though in some societies it's obviously more of a burden to be a member than in others. For obvious reasons it's not good when "underclass" largely overlaps with an ethnic or cultural group.
Terrorism has been with us in some form of another for centuries. A couple of decades ago European terrorism was largely about marxism and ethnic nationalism. It's a mistake to think that islamic terrorism is somehow special, or that islam is somehow more prone to terrorism than other group identities.
The Spanish are one of the few nations that don't need to be lectured, because ETA is technically still active and have committed acts of terrorism in the not too distant past. Other Europeans have, for some reason, extremely faulty memory in this regard.
when a student made a facebook post with a pun concerning the food pasticcio and Father Paisius (a famous deceased monk), he was immediately arrested for violating our laws about blasphemy.
I think that's completely insane.
Kralizec
01-13-2015, 00:08
What a clown. (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesuisnico-trends-sarkozy-weaves-front-paris-rally-161250684.html#IaMm5hF)
:laugh4:
after doing a google search for jesuisnico
He's probably better than the arse that took his job, though.
IRA is still within living memory. I was in Manchester during their bomb-attack there.
What Fragony seems to forget here is that Charlie Hebdo is a left-wing magazine.
I know that
edit: http://www.liberation.fr/societe/2015/01/12/mahomet-en-une-du-charlie-hebdo-de-mercredi_1179193 :thumbsup:
a completely inoffensive name
01-13-2015, 07:53
Having right for saying ANYTHING disregarding how much you may insult the others turns freedom into anarchy.
And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society. To quote a smart French man:
"SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."
As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law, UNLESS, one of these groups is strong enough to force their views through government policy at the expense (and resentment) of the minority. However, this force is not legitimate, only raw repression dressed up, just as Jim Crow could not be said to be morally legitimate even if the legality of such laws were solid.
This is why the UK and other European nations are so backwards (as viewed from the US) when it comes to free speech. The UK still holds onto its old conceptions of what is an "acceptable" expression of speech while at the same time allowing in immigrants who have radically different views that UK natives see as reprehensible without even considering the moral implications of their own blasphemy laws still on the books!
If things can not be said that might offend someone, obviously nothing ends up being said.
Then one has to take a decision on what is the "culture of the land" and base things on this arbitrary judgement - we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.
If everyone is part of the same culture, regardless of their ethnicity, then this shouldn't be too much of an issue. When this is not the case problems occur.
~:smoking:
And here summed up wonderfully, is both the moral and pragmatic reason why European countries need to dial down their multicultural experiment if they do not wish to change fundamental outlooks on the relationship between the individual and society.
Rhyfelwyr
01-13-2015, 12:00
And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society. To quote a smart French man:
"SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men."
As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law, UNLESS, one of these groups is strong enough to force their views through government policy at the expense (and resentment) of the minority. However, this force is not legitimate, only raw repression dressed up, just as Jim Crow could not be said to be morally legitimate even if the legality of such laws were solid.
I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites. Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).
Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.
To me, this is just about basic decency towards your fellow man.
And one final point, your idea of what divisions make a society multicultural is, like the very concepts of what is decent or offensive, entirely arbitrary and subjective. No society is monolithic, to take the example of the UK, around the time it developed free speech there were Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, dissenters, deists, atheists, and even within these groupings, no doubt every individual had their own opinions. I am confident that even today when we now have Muslims, Hindus and others, we are quite capable of broadly agreeing on a basic standard of what constitutes deliberately offensive material.
This is why the UK and other European nations are so backwards (as viewed from the US) when it comes to free speech. The UK still holds onto its old conceptions of what is an "acceptable" expression of speech while at the same time allowing in immigrants who have radically different views that UK natives see as reprehensible without even considering the moral implications of their own blasphemy laws still on the books!
Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?
Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).
Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.
Not so much about content as about intensity, prevalence, context and avenue. Compare this with what it means to 'harass' somebody.
Leet Eriksson
01-13-2015, 16:57
I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites. Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?
I'm Muslim, the problem isn't really the imagery, alot of people miss the fact they're using the racism as satire of racists, not really to be racist themselves. Its not even about reading on to it, look at the Taubira article where she is depicted as a monkey, with an FN motto of sorts being twisted, it wasn't mocking Taubira it was mocking FN, she also thanked them.
French humour is certainly something, but the CH magazines are not racist at all, they're anti-racist, and i think with french leftists they also uphold anti-clerical views, that about covers all beliefs.
Also the cover for their latest release is great, its basically a gigantic "Fuck You" to everyone.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-13-2015, 19:35
... Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?
I too find such zones annoying. The original goal was to have a designated location where protesters could protest without prior permit and without interfering with the proceedings. Mostly these zones have been established at Party conventions, at Economic summit conferences, and -- more permanently -- on college campuses. To me, the last is particularly galling since free exchange of ideas is the whole blinking point about college.
In general, the only requirement for free assembly in the USA is a permit. The permit mostly serves as advance notice so that the authorities can cordon off streets or otherwise see to the safety of the assembly. Denial of permits has been abused, but such denials are only generally accepted where the gathering is considered likely to result in violence.
In general, free speech is not restricted unless such speech would create a "clear and present danger" to the community thereby.
“I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression” And who define what is offensive or not? I find offensive religious (some) stories. I find offensive the slaughter of individual depicted in the Bible, I find offensive the concept of the Land of War and the Land of Submission. I find offensive the basic inequality in each religion. But I don’t censure the Bible or the Koran. Believers in theses Faith have to deal with them, not me.
But I will not accept them to tell me what is moral or immoral, and certainly not the most obscurantists of them.
To be frank, I didn’t like Charlie Hebdo, or its predecessor Hara Kiri. I didn’t like the style of drawing, sometimes their sense of humour. No killer scum bag will force me to buy tomorrow one of them. That is my freedom of choice.
Now, I share with them the fight against obscurantism, against the belief of god, and/or others superstitions.
As I mentioned before, until the First Republic, it was grossly offensive to pretend that the Christ’s mother was not a virgin.
Some of you as Puritans do not believe in it. So do we have to send the Dragoons in your home until you convert to Catholicism, like Louis the XIV did? Or do we have to agree that: “the Liberty to every man to speak, write, print, and publish his opinions without having his writings subject to any censorship or inspection before their publication, and to worship as he pleases” followed by “The legislative power may not make any laws which infringe upon or obstruct the exercise of the natural and civil rights recorded in the present title and guaranteed by the Constitution; but, since liberty consists of being able to do only whatever is not injurious to the rights of others or to public security, the law may establish penalties for acts which, assailing either public security or the rights of others, might be injurious to society.” Note: The Law, not the decency, not others outlaw powers, the Laws, voted by a Parliament, not a group of self-promoted representatives of various groups or/and lobbies.
“imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).” I don’t have to imagine when I know, as finally recognised by the Media, that France has the biggest Muslim (and Jewish) Community in Europe. So they are probably quite ok with it. Because the vast majority of them are atheists any way, as the vast of the others so-called confession are. They follow Ramadan as I follow X-mas, for the cakes and the celebration that follows (the arabs receipes for cakes are absolutely diet free: 1 kilogram each time you look at them).
And once again, France not being a Religious Country, we don’t have a State Religion, there is no blasphemous cartoon. The maximum is bad taste cartoons, but, hey, don’t look at them. If some are more shock by drawing that by the killing of 4 Jews just because they were Jews, well, I am really happy and hope they will suffer more in their feelings.
"atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate" Well, I don’t give a damn as there is no hell. And even in the absurd hypothesis there is one, the idea to share a Paradise with this kind of lots… Prefer Hell, if you don’t mind, where the greatest minds, the hottest women and the funniest men are. Imagine sharing Rice Pudding with Mother Theresa with Harps (or Richard Clederman)music in the back-ground… Just the thought...
And opinion of idiots tends to make me laugh anyway. What really up-set me is when believers start to kill non-believers. Remind me Torquemada, don’t know why…
What a clown. (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jesuisnico-trends-sarkozy-weaves-front-paris-rally-161250684.html#IaMm5hF)
Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy was the butt of Internet jokes on Monday after he managed to shimmy his way to the front of the historic march in Paris on Sunday.
Ehehehehe, that's the real question, the front of what march?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/photo-world-leaders-paris-not-article-1.2074629
They led the march from so far ahead that they ended up alone, that's true leadership. :laugh4:
Oh, and everybody who attended obviously supports a Free Press.....in France, but not always at home....
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/do-world-leaders-at-paris-march-really-care-about-press-freedoms--gkvcJDoscx
Just more farce for everyone!
And people think we have no propaganda in the West...
Seamus Fermanagh
01-14-2015, 04:08
Wisdom? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0)
CrossLOPER
01-14-2015, 05:22
Wisdom? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0)
Two minutes later, you posted a sub-sophomoric come-back in the Ukraine thread.
you tell them https://mobile.twitter.com/JessicaChasmar/status/555041693880565760/photo/1
:thumbsup:
a completely inoffensive name
01-14-2015, 07:37
I don't see restrictions on public distribution of grossly offensive material as repression, I see it as good governance and as a basic duty of the government - to protect minorities as well as reflect majority sensibilites.
A. What is offensive? If I think a picture of the queen being pissed on is hilarious, why is my view disregarded and yours codified in law?
B. What good is the government doing by protecting the minority by policing what the majority say? Why do you think that will change the attitudes of the majority? Personally, if the US government had banned the n-word, the problem of tackling racism would have been exacerbated, because all those thoughts simply go underground and unchallenged in the public sphere. By allowing "shameful" or "offensive" material to be published you actually now have a mechanism of reaching the public by pointing to concrete examples of "this is wrong".
Otherwise, people would be subjected to the tyranny of the most vile and contemptuous individuals in society - imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).
Might be somewhat similar to pro-choice people in present day US seeing aborted fetuses on billboards every 40 miles in the South (certain regions). People continue to go about their day. Every week a man stands on a soapbox at my Uni and tells me I am going to hell, I am not emotionally distressed.
Alternatively, imagine how an atheist would feel if he had to walk down a city centre where on every corner there were preachers screaming "atheists will burn in hell, atheists are degenerate", etc. Even in a majority Christian/faith-based society, I would say it is the duty of the government to outlaw such behaviour.
I have experienced that to a degree, and I don't want those sad men to be silenced. I want them to continue saying what they want, and I want to continue ignoring them.
To me, this is just about basic decency towards your fellow man.
It is more decent to let an individual say what he wants and let him deal accordingly with the consequences of his actions than to "save" others by making sure he knows what is proper to say and what isn't.
And one final point, your idea of what divisions make a society multicultural is, like the very concepts of what is decent or offensive, entirely arbitrary and subjective. No society is monolithic, to take the example of the UK, around the time it developed free speech there were Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, dissenters, deists, atheists, and even within these groupings, no doubt every individual had their own opinions. I am confident that even today when we now have Muslims, Hindus and others, we are quite capable of broadly agreeing on a basic standard of what constitutes deliberately offensive material.
The UK suffered many internal conflicts and civil wars because of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Free speech arose because it was the solution to having cohabitation. The more liberal the laws regarding speech became, the more peaceful the divisions became. Now we are at a point where two random strangers, one Catholic and one Protestant can simply agree to disagree and have a pint together. The solution is not to maintain restrictive laws but to make them even more free.
Isn't the fact that the USA has legally-recognized "free speech zones" kind of a recognition that otherwise, the USA does allow unrestricted free speech?
Seamus answered this pretty well. Even if there is a hypocrisy in what I say versus what my country does, I would say that US laws could and should become even more liberal. There is nothing more blatantly subjective than the phrase "I know it when I see it." And yet, this is the standard on what constitutes art vs pornography. This should be exposed for what it is, and dismantled.
Ehehehehe, that's the real question, the front of what march?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/photo-world-leaders-paris-not-article-1.2074629
They led the march from so far ahead that they ended up alone, that's true leadership. :laugh4:
Oh, and everybody who attended obviously supports a Free Press.....in France, but not always at home....
http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/do-world-leaders-at-paris-march-really-care-about-press-freedoms--gkvcJDoscx
Just more farce for everyone!
And people think we have no propaganda in the West...
Even the Emir of Qatar, who funds the "moderate" islamist groups in Syria, has joined the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. Then he sent a couple of AKs to Al-Julani, who'd love to impose sharia in Syria, but not as harshly as ISIS, who are the bad muslims.
Gilrandir
01-14-2015, 13:17
we allow cartoons of Prophets but not cartoons of child rape for example.
Perhaps there are society where it is the other way around.
What, what? You make so many assumptions about what I believe, talk about putting words into my mouth.
That's the usual game of Master Brenus. Have been having it for half a year.
And this anarchy is exactly the only moral and indeed even the only pragmatic view to have in any multicultural society.
This is a sure way to chaos as people wil never know where to stop in there obsession not to limit the freedom of speech. Thus insulting vs not-insulting criterion is the one to gauge how free you should be in what you say.
As a multicultural society, such conventions of what is "decent" or "libel" or "slander" or "offensive" can not be formed. It is impossible to have the Christian and the Jew and the Muslim and the Hindu to agree on what these terms are and codify it into law.
People living in such societies are usually well aware of the sensitive issues they should be careful about. For example, when I came to the USA I was told (by the locals) that I shouldn't address or refer to young black males as "boy". So it is not about the law, but about the rules of being decent to the people you communicate with.
And who define what is offensive or not?
But I will not accept them to tell me what is moral or immoral, and certainly not the most obscurantists of them.
Offensive and immoral are two incomparable categories as they don't match completely. For example, a nude picture on a lamp-post is immoral, but not offensive.
“imagine how a Muslim would feel walking down a city centre where every boulevard, poster and magazine cover shows shockingly blasphemous pictures of their religious leaders and racial characatures of Muslims that are about as sensitive as blackface (seriously, have you seen some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff?).” I don’t have to imagine when I know, as finally recognised by the Media, that France has the biggest Muslim (and Jewish) Community in Europe. So they are probably quite ok with it.
You make an assumption without having asked them. How typical.
Prefer Hell, if you don’t mind, where the greatest minds, the hottest women and the funniest men are.
If there is the hell as you described it, then one certainly won't be allowed to do things you would like to do with funniest men and hottest women.
Generally speaking, if you feel so free to disregard the sensitive issues, be smart enough to take precautions against adverse consequences. Otherwise you a woman in a mini-skirt who goes out at 11 p.m. to have a walk about a dangerous neignborhood (can I say Harlem, or will it be offensive?)
Seamus Fermanagh
01-14-2015, 16:08
Two minutes later, you posted a sub-sophomoric come-back in the Ukraine thread.
My momma didn't raise any fools.
Daddy raised me.
I remembered this little clichéd plea by Mr. King because it was strikingly simple and wise while at the same time being an utterly inadequate response to a complex and frustrating situation. As Ferguson MS shows, sadly, that context has not altered.
Is it relevant to this latest glaring episode of violence stemming from Wahabist radicalism? I think so, and for the same reasons: It is both simple wisdom and utterly inadequate.
rory_20_uk
01-14-2015, 16:18
Perhaps there are society where it is the other way around.
People living in such societies are usually well aware of the sensitive issues they should be careful about. For example, when I came to the USA I was told (by the locals) that I shouldn't address or refer to young black males as "boy". So it is not about the law, but about the rules of being decent to the people you communicate with.
On the first point perhaps there is. I am not bothered one way or the other as long as it is not the UK.
And the latter point is indeed the whole issue - if people tacitly abide by the common niceties of society then all is fine. Increasingly people don't want to do so - or bring very different cultural norms along with themselves rather than desiring assimilation or having very similar cultural norms.
~:smoking:
And European politics continue to support freedom of speech.
France does it by defining what exactly freedom of speech means in the modern world and what you really shouldn't say:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/quenelle-comedian-dieudonne-arrested-for-apology-for-terrorism-9976667.html
Anti-semitic French comedian Dieudonné was arrested after he seemingly compared himself to the terrorist who murdered four people at a kosher supermarket in Paris last week.
Dieudonné M’Bala M’bala, 48, who was being held for questioning at a Paris police station, could face possible charges of "apology for terrorism".
A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?
And our friendly neighborhood Cameron thinks that speech should be truly freed by removing the shackles of encryption so that it is truly free to be read by the government:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron-ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-shopping-banking-messaging-terror
“[I]n our country, do we want to allow a means of communication between people which we cannot read?”, the prime minister asked rhetorically.
About time for the government to put microphones into our beds, though tooth implants might be more practicable.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-14-2015, 16:31
And European politics continue to support freedom of speech.
France does it by defining what exactly freedom of speech means in the modern world and what you really shouldn't say:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/quenelle-comedian-dieudonne-arrested-for-apology-for-terrorism-9976667.html
A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?
And our friendly neighborhood Cameron thinks that speech should be truly freed by removing the shackles of encryption so that it is truly free to be read by the government:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/cameron-ban-encryption-digital-britain-online-shopping-banking-messaging-terror
About time for the government to put microphones into our beds, though tooth implants might be more practicable.
Actually, I have read that the chip/speaker would work better on the mastoid bone....teeth do get misplaced albeit infrequently.
"You make an assumption without having asked them." No need to ask, just to live with "Muslims" is enough, to go partying with them, to chat-up the girls in University. You ignore reality. As usual.
"That's the usual game of Master Brenus. Have been having it for half a year." And as in your case perfectly accurate in doing so as he wrote "and I think that to do so would be morally wrong" speaking of mocking religions. Not my fault, in his case or yours, it is what you and him wrote, don't blame me.
"Generally speaking, if you feel so free to disregard the sensitive issues, be smart enough to take precautions against adverse consequences. Otherwise you a woman in a mini-skirt who goes out at 11 p.m. to have a walk about a dangerous neignborhood (can I say Harlem, or will it be offensive?)" Remind me somebody, during other debate, telling it is not nice to blame the victim of an aggression... Ah, yes, it was you... Can you, at least, be consistent? Well, every one is allowed to change his/her mind, true...
"A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?" Well, it is against the law to support Criminal Activities and to be racist. It is against the Constitution and the Common Laws. So, what will be the test?
"A true test for our standards or does the scumbag deserve to be punished for what he said?" Well, it is against the law to support Criminal Activities and to be racist. It is against the Constitution and the Common Laws. So, what will be the test?
If there is no test, then the scumbag deserves to be punished for what he says, my question only gave these two options. ~;)
So basically people support the freedom of speech only when it is not against the law? What should the law be then?
It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want. Doesn't that create a power inequality that enrages the side that is not allowed to respond?
Unless you mean to say that the guy literally supported terrorism in any substantial way with what he said (e.g. he helped the planning of further attacks with what he said), but then you might want to be so kind as to explain that. His tweet seems relatively harmless, more like an angry reaction.
ACIN's solution is to make freedom of speech more universal, I assume that means you would be allowed to say that you (morally) support this or that terrorist attack. Then we could ask further whether money also constitutes free speech as it does in US politics if I understand that correctly.
I can't say I prefer either extreme but arresting someone just for a tweet seems a bit heavy handed to me. :shrug:
Don Corleone
01-14-2015, 23:02
I may be mistaken on this, but I believe that here in the US, you are legally allowed to state that you support the terrorists. Plenty of people were marching around, supporting the 19 terrorists after 9/11. It may not be wise or safe, but it is legal.
Generally speaking, the only bounds legally allowed in the US are 1) slander (which is actually pretty tough to prove here because you have to prove malicious intent, not just that the statement was malicious and incorrect) and 2) where your speech itself causes harm (shouting "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater and the human stampede that would be caused). Yes, there's a LOT of legally wrangling on that fine line of when does the speech itself actually cause harm (Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist loonies won time and again in court).
“It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want.” Err, no. Charlie Hebdo publication of the Cartoon against Pope, Muhammad and others Religions is within the law. CH never told atheists to kill believers; they mocked aspect of the faith. They never published a text saying it was right to kill.
The sad individual who was once funny is saying it is not only ok but good to kill Jews. This is against the law. This is not an opinion, as killing unlawfully is not legal, it is an offense. Perhaps in other countries it is legal to call for killings. Well, not In France. Perhaps in others countries it is legal to glorify murders, and murderers, not in France.
France paid a HUGE price for Religious Obscurantism, fanatics and slaughter in the past. Our bloodiest wars were Religious, between Catholics and Protestants (not speaking of internal Crusades and witches hunting). One of the French (king) Saint Louis the XIV, was the one imposing a special sign to be wear by the Jews (la rouelle, a yellow wheel), symbol they have to buy, there is no small profit; and to pierce with a hot poker the tongues of the blasphemers, of course. He is an OFFICIAL Saint of the Catholic Church, this nice one.
The sad individual who was once funny is saying it is not only ok but good to kill Jews.
No, he said "As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly" and was arrested. Which is utterly ridiculous.
Gilrandir
01-15-2015, 11:21
"You make an assumption without having asked them." No need to ask, just to live with "Muslims" is enough, to go partying with them, to chat-up the girls in University. You ignore reality. As usual.
You and Sarmatian denied me knowing the sentiment of Russian-speakers in Ukraine, yet you can have a common carouse with a limited number of Muslims in your environment and boast of knowing the feelings of all (or at least majority) of them.
"Generally speaking, if you feel so free to disregard the sensitive issues, be smart enough to take precautions against adverse consequences. Otherwise you a woman in a mini-skirt who goes out at 11 p.m. to have a walk about a dangerous neignborhood (can I say Harlem, or will it be offensive?)" Remind me somebody, during other debate, telling it is not nice to blame the victim of an aggression... Ah, yes, it was you... Can you, at least, be consistent? Well, every one is allowed to change his/her mind, true...
You said in the other debate that Ukraine was a victim yet it was to blame for provoking the aggression (as you saw it). Bear-poking, remember? So it is in YOUR logics that Charlie Ebdo are to blame in what has happened to them.
The difference between Ukraine and Ebdo is that Ukrainians (except, perhaps, Svoboda) in their worst nightmares never could see Russia as an aggressor, while the magazine have been the targets of attacks (albeit not so violent) before, so they should have known better that some day their "muslim-poking" might come to this.
Charlie Hebdo publication of the Cartoon against Pope, Muhammad and others Religions is within the law. CH never told atheists to kill believers; they mocked aspect of the faith.
And they increased their circulation to 5 mln. copies and got some nice sponsors. That is if we speak of beneficiaries of the slaughter.
If there is no test, then the scumbag deserves to be punished for what he says, my question only gave these two options. ~;)
So basically people support the freedom of speech only when it is not against the law? What should the law be then?
The same as about listening to some songs: you just can't do that.
http://www.unian.info/world/1031777-moscow-police-arrest-people-listening-to-ukrainian-anthem-in-car.html
“It's pretty strange when everybody (and the law) supports Charlie Hebdo to say what they want, but the people Charlie Hebdo annoys are not allowed to respond by saying what they want.” Err, no. Charlie Hebdo publication of the Cartoon against Pope, Muhammad and others Religions is within the law. CH never told atheists to kill believers; they mocked aspect of the faith. They never published a text saying it was right to kill.
The sad individual who was once funny is saying it is not only ok but good to kill Jews. This is against the law. This is not an opinion, as killing unlawfully is not legal, it is an offense. Perhaps in other countries it is legal to call for killings. Well, not In France. Perhaps in others countries it is legal to glorify murders, and murderers, not in France.
Eh, what Viking said:
No, he said "As for me, I feel I am Charlie Coulibaly" and was arrested. Which is utterly ridiculous.
That's what the articles say he was arrested for, he is not really calling for anything or saying anything is okay. His statement can be interpreted from a lot of angles, some of which are more and some less "okay", but it is quite strange that he was arrested for this based on some law that supposedly forbids this. It could have just been an attempt to be edgy and start a discussion, unless you think he was announcing that he'd become a terrorist on twitter and then stayed at home to wait for the police. :dizzy2:
And that part about laws fails to address my point, which was not about whether this is legal in France, but whether it makes sense to protest in favor of free speech and to then arrest people for speaking their mind? First everybody turns to the streets to protest for freedom and a more inclusive and friendly society, then you arrest 54 people who said something you don't like.
The following article explains it a bit, apparently he has a history of saying even worse things: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8329e256-9bed-11e4-a6b6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Osv1qSQU
It's still pretty obvious that the arrests are some kind of crackdown or fear reaction supposed to show that the government is acting on the "terror threat". The Charles de Gaulle also left for the Persian Gulf to go bomb some people. Let's hope the US supply some new bombs again when you run out again. ~;)
France paid a HUGE price for Religious Obscurantism, fanatics and slaughter in the past. Our bloodiest wars were Religious, between Catholics and Protestants (not speaking of internal Crusades and witches hunting). One of the French (king) Saint Louis the XIV, was the one imposing a special sign to be wear by the Jews (la rouelle, a yellow wheel), symbol they have to buy, there is no small profit; and to pierce with a hot poker the tongues of the blasphemers, of course. He is an OFFICIAL Saint of the Catholic Church, this nice one.
So because of France's totally unique history of the evils of catholicism from really long ago, all religions should be excluded from free speech in modern France? Or what exactly is the point here? Do arrests make a problem go away?
InsaneApache
01-15-2015, 12:10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqvskXCz-kk
This lady finds a hammer and a nail and hits it right on the head.
Yeah she is great. A shame not everybody is physically capable of watching it
Rhyfelwyr
01-15-2015, 13:53
Wow, just a day after championing the right of a person to say whatever they want, suddenly Brenus is happy to see a man arrested for uttering the words "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly." That hypocrisy says it all for me.
A. What is offensive? If I think a picture of the queen being pissed on is hilarious, why is my view disregarded and yours codified in law?
Because the Queen is a widely popular and respected figure of national unity, whose position as monarch and head of state is codified in the UK's foundational documents.
B. What good is the government doing by protecting the minority by policing what the majority say? Why do you think that will change the attitudes of the majority? Personally, if the US government had banned the n-word, the problem of tackling racism would have been exacerbated, because all those thoughts simply go underground and unchallenged in the public sphere. By allowing "shameful" or "offensive" material to be published you actually now have a mechanism of reaching the public by pointing to concrete examples of "this is wrong".
It has nothing to do with changing attitudes, it is purely about allowing people to go about their lives peaceably. Also, although the idea that banning beliefs/behaviours merely pushes them underground and allows them to go unchallenged is often bandied about, its simply wrong. One case in point - the de-nazification of Germany, where heavy handed censorship worked in forcing a dramatic cultural change and successfully annihilated Nazi beliefs in the country.
Might be somewhat similar to pro-choice people in present day US seeing aborted fetuses on billboards every 40 miles in the South (certain regions). People continue to go about their day.
I don't think those billboard are acceptable, especially not in a public place where children will see them - so at least I'm consistent in my principles.
Every week a man stands on a soapbox at my Uni and tells me I am going to hell, I am not emotionally distressed.
I have experienced that to a degree, and I don't want those sad men to be silenced. I want them to continue saying what they want, and I want to continue ignoring them.
But your feelings are not representative of everybody else's. Most people, even in the Western world, would agree that there are certain contexts for certain material when freedom of speech should be restricted and are not comfortable with being exposed to the bile that is spouted from people from all walks of life.
It is more decent to let an individual say what he wants and let him deal accordingly with the consequences of his actions than to "save" others by making sure he knows what is proper to say and what isn't.
That depends on the context. For political rallies etc, sure I agree to an extent. But I don't think things should ever be allowed to get to the point where people are routinely harassed and perturbed by hateful, vile or obscene expressions, whether words or images.
The UK suffered many internal conflicts and civil wars because of the differences between Protestants and Catholics. Free speech arose because it was the solution to having cohabitation. The more liberal the laws regarding speech became, the more peaceful the divisions became. Now we are at a point where two random strangers, one Catholic and one Protestant can simply agree to disagree and have a pint together. The solution is not to maintain restrictive laws but to make them even more free.
This is pure revisionism - it is wishful thinking to think that what we regard as politically liberating measures had purely, or even primarily positive effects. To run with the UK example - the expansion of the franchise to ordinary burghers in Scotland after the 1690 Revolution meant that the more tolerant Royalist politicians were replaced by aggressive, populist Presbyterian firebrands that ushered in a wave of witch-hunts and anti-Catholic measures. You might try and argue that it works in the long-term, but that's impossible to judge when things are blurred by so many other factors.
Seamus answered this pretty well. Even if there is a hypocrisy in what I say versus what my country does, I would say that US laws could and should become even more liberal. There is nothing more blatantly subjective than the phrase "I know it when I see it." And yet, this is the standard on what constitutes art vs pornography. This should be exposed for what it is, and dismantled.
My problem is that a very ideologically-driven core are pushing this radical libertarian-esque approach to free speech and government intervention as if it is somehow the 'true' Western, Enlightened approach. The truth is that free speech was originally concerned with basic political and religious expression, and was regarded as an entirely separate matter from laws regarding obscenities and other things that these modern radicals are trying to normalize.
“That hypocrisy says it all for me.” You’re right. Your hypocrisy is to all to see. You told us you were against the killings, but you have nothing against celebrating a man who killed 4 Jews… Congratulation, you reach a new level in whatever. By the way, where is the satire in a celebration of a killer? Tell me I am anxious to know…
“That's what the articles say he was arrested for”: Koulibali is the scum bag who killed 4 Jews because they were Jews. Yeah, nice joke, isn’t it, make me laugh…
“arrest people for speaking their mind?” I am sorry to tell you that to think it is find to kill people because their religion (Jews) is not allowed in France. I am sorry to tell you that it is not allowed to call to murder others, and it is not considered as an opinion. You might disagree and find perfectly ok to appeal to kill, well, I don’t, and France laws do the same.
I find shameful to put in parallel drawing cartoons and the celebration of the killing of people. Well, it tells a lot a suppose.
“So because of France's totally unique history of the evils of catholicism from really long ago, all religions should be excluded from free speech in modern France?” Do not reverse the problematic. The victims here are not the religious, but the atheists killed by obscurantist religious scam bags. The obscurantists are hurt in their feelings, poor things, the atheists are dead. The freedom of speech is for all religions, and none attacked their freedom to speak. What is actually under attack is their freedom to kill others under various pretexts.
I am with the Scot, I wouldn't call an ambulance for him, but prosecuting him is just off.
Rhyfelwyr
01-15-2015, 20:10
“That hypocrisy says it all for me.” You’re right. Your hypocrisy is to all to see. You told us you were against the killings, but you have nothing against celebrating a man who killed 4 Jews… Congratulation, you reach a new level in whatever. By the way, where is the satire in celebration a killer? Tell me an anxious to know…
What he said had nothing to do with celebrating killings, at least it didn't look like it to me. That is just your interpretation of what he said. But in your mind, it seems that your interpretations are grounds enough for arresting people.
Rhyfelwyr
01-15-2015, 20:22
Ach don't tell me even I'm going to start warming to Pope Francis:
Pope says free speech has limits and threatens to punch assisstant (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625)
"That is just your interpretation of what he said." Oh. He said he was this killer, the one who killed 4 Jews and this can be interpreted in what exactly? A killer of Jews, by a man who was convicted for antisemitism, but yeay, you can be against the killing and tell that you the killer who did it, celebrate the killing. So, ok, there are laws you can ignore when it just because the guy you celebrate the name killed Jews.
So, tell me, what did he said, according to your interpretation, give me the joke?
Kralizec
01-15-2015, 21:19
Oh. He said he was this killer, the one who killed 4 Jews and this can be interpreted in what exactly?
As a tasteless joke from a comedian who admittedly happens to be a flaming racist?
Along with his previous controversies it might be seen as a pattern of anti-semitism, but qualifying this particular statement as glorifying or condoning murder sounds like stretch...
“arrest people for speaking their mind?” I am sorry to tell you that to think it is find to kill people because their religion (Jews) is not allowed in France. I am sorry to tell you that it is not allowed to call to murder others, and it is not considered as an opinion. You might disagree and find perfectly ok to appeal to kill, well, I don’t, and France laws do the same.
I find shameful to put in parallel drawing cartoons and the celebration of the killing of people. Well, it tells a lot a suppose.
There is no need for you to be sorry, I just don't see where he glorified the killings. He made a really bad joke, yes, but it's not a glorification. I wasn't "putting anything in parallel", I was asking how far freedom of speech should go. And saying that if this sort of bad joke gets you arrested now, it seems quite restricted in France, considering they all have a happy parade about how much freedom of speech they want.
Montmorency
01-16-2015, 00:47
Both Rhy and Brenus seem to be wrong.
Promulgating hate or ridicule is not equivalent to promulgating violence, and even then it's an open question of whether such should be tolerated.
A relevant example may be the infamous Tosh "rape joke":
Wouldn’t it be funny if that girl [referring to an audience member who “heckled” him about rape jokes not being funny earlier in his set] got raped by, like, five guys right now? Like right now?
Without exploring the many aspects of this "joke" that make it unfunny, let's acknowledge that it cannot reasonably be prosecuted under any law not explicitly associated with "obscenity". Indeed, that is as it should be.
TBH every single proposed or existing restriction or qualification to speech rights that I've ever seen has been wholly arbitrary. Stop being hypocrites about free speech, and I mean "hypocrite" in the original sense of "liar".
a completely inoffensive name
01-16-2015, 05:27
Because the Queen is a widely popular and respected figure of national unity, whose position as monarch and head of state is codified in the UK's foundational documents.
So if the Queen was not popular and respected, then it would be ok to disrespect her? Uhhhhhh Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are codified in our foundational documents, we still respect the position while openly mocking the humans occupying those positions.
It has nothing to do with changing attitudes, it is purely about allowing people to go about their lives peaceably. Also, although the idea that banning beliefs/behaviours merely pushes them underground and allows them to go unchallenged is often bandied about, its simply wrong. One case in point - the de-nazification of Germany, where heavy handed censorship worked in forcing a dramatic cultural change and successfully annihilated Nazi beliefs in the country.
Words are not violence. You may as well lock people up 5 years for throwing a loud house party. The de-nazification of Germany is a terrible example. They did not stop being nazi's because the Swastika was banned. The Nuremberg Trial and subsequent Israeli commandos systematically killed all upper echelons of the Nazi Party. Then the allied forces forcefully showed the German public the atrocities of the Holocaust by taking them to the camps and having them dig graves for the dead. Then what probably helped the most in de-nazification was the successful rebuilding of Germany post WW2 due to the Marshal Plan, since the conditions of the genesis of the Nazi Party were rampant poverty and a crippled economy.
I don't think those billboard are acceptable, especially not in a public place where children will see them - so at least I'm consistent in my principles.
That's why I respect you.
But your feelings are not representative of everybody else's. Most people, even in the Western world, would agree that there are certain contexts for certain material when freedom of speech should be restricted and are not comfortable with being exposed to the bile that is spouted from people from all walks of life.
No one's feelings are representative of everybody else's, thats my point. So why are we pretending that the ones who wish for restrictions are the true representatives that should have their viewed codified?
That depends on the context. For political rallies etc, sure I agree to an extent. But I don't think things should ever be allowed to get to the point where people are routinely harassed and perturbed by hateful, vile or obscene expressions, whether words or images.
You are asking humans to not be human. Again, maybe if you had a very homogeneous culture it could happen. But look at what's happening in Scandinavia, as Kad will certainly open his mouth about it.
This is pure revisionism - it is wishful thinking to think that what we regard as politically liberating measures had purely, or even primarily positive effects. To run with the UK example - the expansion of the franchise to ordinary burghers in Scotland after the 1690 Revolution meant that the more tolerant Royalist politicians were replaced by aggressive, populist Presbyterian firebrands that ushered in a wave of witch-hunts and anti-Catholic measures. You might try and argue that it works in the long-term, but that's impossible to judge when things are blurred by so many other factors.
So the right thing to do would have been to deny the burghers the right to have representation, the right to vote?
My problem is that a very ideologically-driven core are pushing this radical libertarian-esque approach to free speech and government intervention as if it is somehow the 'true' Western, Enlightened approach. The truth is that free speech was originally concerned with basic political and religious expression, and was regarded as an entirely separate matter from laws regarding obscenities and other things that these modern radicals are trying to normalize.
I don't agree with that at all. Taking an example from US history, the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was very vitriolic. Jefferson was a negro-lover and Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." For the most part, early American politicians were content with allowing this since they considered it under the sphere of freedom of the press, they did not have the narrow view of free speech you are suggesting.
“But qualifying this particular statement as glorifying or condoning murder sounds like stretch...” Not according to the French Laws. If you identify yourself with a racist who just killed 4 persons because they belong to a particular religion, you are a racist who glorify murder. Again, nobody answer the question: Explain the joke. I would be happy to have a laugh, so please where is the joke, the satire?
“I just don't see where he glorified the killings” Really? You don’t? Hooray for the hero who killed 4 Jews, I am him, and you don’t see? Perhaps you can ask Cabu, or Wolinsky? Oh, sorry, there are dead.
“Promulgating hate or ridicule is not equivalent to promulgating violence” Agree. The “comedian” is promoting hate and violence. And it is still forbidden in the French Law to promote violence. You just cannot tell to go to kill others, or glorify the one who did.
Two returnees who wanted to behead a police official were killed. Is it so hard, take of their nationality and kick them out. Marocco and Algeria are all to happy to make them dissapear.
edit: also arrests in Germany
It isn't like I haven't understood this for years, bigot me. I hate it when I am right.
TBH every single proposed or existing restriction or qualification to speech rights that I've ever seen has been wholly arbitrary. Stop being hypocrites about free speech, and I mean "hypocrite" in the original sense of "liar".
Arbitrary in what sense?
“But qualifying this particular statement as glorifying or condoning murder sounds like stretch...” Not according to the French Laws. If you identify yourself with a racist who just killed 4 persons because they belong to a particular religion, you are a racist who glorify murder. Again, nobody answer the question: Explain the joke. I would be happy to have a laugh, so please where is the joke, the satire?
Unless he has condoned murder prior to this, you are just projecting your own views of him onto him.
Montmorency
01-16-2015, 12:04
Arbitrary in what sense?
Not in any special sense. Are you getting at meta-arbitrariness?
But I can be more specific. Even granted some individual's views on speech and expression, if that individual claims to support free speech in one breath and restricts it in another with the precise justification that they are preserving freedom at large or have identified some correct area of qualification in the matter, then I call them inconsistent/a liar.
But I can be more specific. Even granted some individual's views on speech and expression, if that individual claims to support free speech in one breath and restricts it in another with the precise justification that they are preserving freedom at large or have identified some correct area of qualification in the matter, then I call them inconsistent/a liar.
One can use different angles (e.g. semantics) to defend the apparent inconsistency.
Here's one: If you wish to defend freedom of speech, issuing laws to help in this defence would seem OK. If some utterances by some people are likely to reduce the freedom of speech of some other people; either because these other people become fearful and censor themselves or even stay quiet (attacked or not attacked), or even killed because of those utterances - then one can argue that outlawing these utterances makes for a freer speech in sum.
Montmorency
01-16-2015, 13:42
If some utterances by some people are likely to reduce the freedom of speech of some other people; either because these other people become fearful and censor themselves or even stay quiet (attacked or not attacked), or even killed because of those utterances - then one can argue that outlawing these utterances makes for a freer speech in sum.
Sure, but that's a distinct approach.
And in that case, even if you escape the pitfalls of justification through appeal to some principle, you become mixed in the construction of evidence.
After all, how can a bare communicative event ever reduce the freedom of expression of others (or some other freedom/right of choice) unless in some performative sense, as in ordering the imprisonment of some individual - as in the very sort of abstract thing being attempted here.
IMO if a regime must restrict freedom of expression in any systematic way to achieve or maintain some objective, then it has already failed in it.
Directly stolen from Geenstijl, this is just too hilarious http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2015/01/diverse_familie.html#comments
The killer's sister teaches how to twerk
After all, how can a bare communicative event ever reduce the freedom of expression of others (or some other freedom/right of choice) unless in some performative sense, as in ordering the imprisonment of some individual - as in the very sort of abstract thing being attempted here.
I don't get where you are coming from here. I've already expressed exactly how some utterances could create fear in others and cause them to withdraw from public discourse.
IMO if a regime must restrict freedom of expression in any systematic way to achieve or maintain some objective, then it has already failed in it.
How? The law enforcement is neither perfect nor omnipotent; it cannot literally guarantee the safety of anyone.
Montmorency
01-16-2015, 16:03
I don't get where you are coming from here. I've already expressed exactly how some utterances could create fear in others and cause them to withdraw from public discourse.
See
How? The law enforcement is neither perfect nor omnipotent; it cannot literally guarantee the safety of anyone.
If expression is targeted for curtailment in order to preserve expression, then the goal of any putative curtailment has already fallen through.
Rhyfelwyr
01-16-2015, 16:10
Will respond to ACIN shortly, but in the meantime, here is an excellent piece by a moderate Muslim who wants to defend traditional Western values of free speech:
As a Muslim, I'm fed up with the hypocrisy of the free speech fundamentalists (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mehdi-hasan/charlie-hebdo-free-speech_b_6462584.html)
If expression is targeted for curtailment in order to preserve expression, then the goal of any putative curtailment has already fallen through.
If you are referring to that people could censor themselves more than what would be required to not break the law, then yes, that should be expected. But this still doesn't mean that the original goal of keeping the freedom of speech at a maximum level is defeated; it just adds some extra weight to the counterargument.
Will respond to ACIN shortly, but in the meantime, here is an excellent piece by a moderate Muslim who wants to defend traditional Western values of free speech:
Fixed that.
Rhyfelwyr
01-16-2015, 16:37
Fixed that.
Its helpful to differentiate moderate Muslims from what we would consider more extreme ones. The media does the same thing with Christians (eg, 'Christians fundamentalists', etc).
Its helpful to differentiate moderate Muslims from what we would consider more extreme ones.
Very important at least for them, because extremists put them on the hitlist first.
Line of people in Oslo (http://www.nrk.no/kultur/koet-rundt-kvartalet-for-charlie-hebdo-1.12155704) (scroll down; second video) wanting to buy one of the 170 exemplars of the post-terror edition of Charlie Hebdo on sale there.
GenosseGeneral
01-16-2015, 19:31
Seems like the police here starts to crack down on Islamists allegedly supporting terrorist groups or even plotting themselves. There have been several searches and arrests in Germany during the last days, although there were no spectacular findings.
In contrast to Belgium:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30848946
Rhyfelwyr
01-16-2015, 19:55
This article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/jan/16/france-much-vaunted-secularism-not-neutral-space-claims-to-be) does a good job of summing up how the extremist and genocidal origins of France's corrupted idea of secularism has created such a discriminatory and totalitarian ideology. I had to do a double take on this bit to believe it:
At the start of this year, the school in the little French town of Sargé-lès-le-Mans instituted a “pork or nothing” policy. Muslim and Jewish kids have either to eat pork or go hungry. Apparently this move is necessary to “save secularism”, according to National Front leader Marine le Pen. “We will accept no religious requirements in the school lunch menus,” she said. “There is no reason for religion to enter the public sphere.”
“moderate Muslim who wants to defend traditional Western values of free speech:” You moderate Muslim is a liar. “is that an endorsement of Charlie Hebdo's depiction of the French justice minister, Christiane Taubira, who is black, drawn as a monkey?” This is a lie. It was a cartoon of the Extreme right newspaper, but don’t let truth bother you too much… CH took the side of the Minister who thanks them for this. As said in a precedent threat you probably didn't read...
“he carried a placard with a cartoon mocking the murdered journalists.” Ah, your moderate Muslim compares a murderer with a cartoon, again, Good tactic in supporting murderers, not really moderate, but then…
“Let's be clear: I agree there is no justification whatsoever for gunning down journalists or cartoonists” but “I disagree with your seeming view that the right to offend comes with no corresponding responsibility; and I do not believe that a right to offend automatically translates into a duty to offend.” So a corresponding answer to cartoon would be a cartoon, no? Not to be killed. Doesn’t matter for your moderate Muslim, of course.
“Of crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs that must make Edward Said turn in his grave?” Should see how the French are depicted… Doesn’t matter, Muslims are the victims of the murdered atheists…
“Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark?” So? Is that bad? To sack someone racist? Your moderate Muslim doesn’t know what he wants? Note the so-called…
So, a big liar, badly informed. well, good propagandist indeed.
And the article is laughable. Taking all from anti-republican cliché they could find, can’t stop laughing. You should really read more history. About Robespierre...
And, yes, a extreme-right nazi mayor did this. Shame, nothing to say about this, this what happened when people vote for extreme-right. Probably a good catholic mind you, as Marine Le Pen who had her children baptised in a extreme branch of the Catholic Church.
Yes, the fight for enlightenment is a long one, and religious obscurantists, helping each others, reinforcing each others, will oppose it.
Marine Le Pen as champion of Laicité is as laughable than your moderate Muslim being moderate.
So, bodies of the dead atheists are just cold, but the campaign of denigration and dirt starts very well...
Its helpful to differentiate moderate Muslims from what we would consider more extreme ones. The media does the same thing with Christians (eg, 'Christians fundamentalists', etc).
Christians in America that don't firebomb abortion clinics are "moderate Christians?". The nomer moderate muslim is a fallacy; as if they have to "moderate" their beliefs in order to be functioning members of society. Idiotic.
Rhyfelwyr
01-17-2015, 00:28
So if the Queen was not popular and respected, then it would be ok to disrespect her? Uhhhhhh Congress, the President and the Supreme Court are codified in our foundational documents, we still respect the position while openly mocking the humans occupying those positions.
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.
Words are not violence. You may as well lock people up 5 years for throwing a loud house party. The de-nazification of Germany is a terrible example. They did not stop being nazi's because the Swastika was banned. The Nuremberg Trial and subsequent Israeli commandos systematically killed all upper echelons of the Nazi Party. Then the allied forces forcefully showed the German public the atrocities of the Holocaust by taking them to the camps and having them dig graves for the dead. Then what probably helped the most in de-nazification was the successful rebuilding of Germany post WW2 due to the Marshal Plan, since the conditions of the genesis of the Nazi Party were rampant poverty and a crippled economy.
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 practise.
No one's feelings are representative of everybody else's, thats my point. So why are we pretending that the ones who wish for restrictions are the true representatives that should have their viewed codified?
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.
You are asking humans to not be human. Again, maybe if you had a very homogeneous culture it could happen. But look at what's happening in Scandinavia, as Kad will certainly open his mouth about it.
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!
So the right thing to do would have been to deny the burghers the right to have representation, the right to vote?
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!
I don't agree with that at all. Taking an example from US history, the election of 1800 between Adams and Jefferson was very vitriolic. Jefferson was a negro-lover and Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." For the most part, early American politicians were content with allowing this since they considered it under the sphere of freedom of the press, they did not have the narrow view of free speech you are suggesting.
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.
This article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/jan/16/france-much-vaunted-secularism-not-neutral-space-claims-to-be) does a good job of summing up how the extremist and genocidal origins of France's corrupted idea of secularism has created such a discriminatory and totalitarian ideology. I had to do a double take on this bit to believe it:
That's just wrong.
Marien Le pen as defender of Laicité: http://www.english.rfi.fr/culture/20111026-french-christian-fundamentalists-attack-blasphemous-play
http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/europe/57278-150110-i-am-not-charlie-jean-marie-le-pen-says
Gilrandir
01-17-2015, 15:57
“Did you not know that Charlie Hebdo sacked the veteran French cartoonist Maurice Sinet in 2008 for making an allegedly anti-Semitic remark?” So? Is that bad? To sack someone racist?
Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much. If you are doing your job well, what's the difference what you believe in.
Montmorency
01-17-2015, 16:09
Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much.
Freedom of speech is a political notion, extended from the state to the citizen. Not by the employer to its employee.
Rhyfelwyr
01-17-2015, 16:35
If Brenus has a genuine concern to censor anything that glorifies terrorism, I wonder if he also campaigns furiously to get all the statues of genocidal, secularist extremists like Robespierre removed, since they are currently dotted all over France.
Gilrandir
01-17-2015, 16:38
Freedom of speech is a political notion, extended from the state to the citizen. Not by the employer to its employee.
That is why ideological convictions (expressed by a person thanks to freedom of speech) are not a valid reason for sacking.
Montmorency
01-17-2015, 17:23
You'll have to explain how that can be the case, when it's clearly an entirely-separate issue from freedom-of-speech.
Gilrandir
01-17-2015, 18:00
You'll have to explain how that can be the case, when it's clearly an entirely-separate issue from freedom-of-speech.
The employer in relation to the employee shouldn't take upon himself the role of the state towards the citizen.
Brenus said that it is a good thing to fire a racist. The racist is a person who is identified by the his/her ideological convictions. If one fires him/her because of them it is infringement on being free to express his/her convictions: he/she suffers the loss of job just because he/she was free enough to express his/her worldview. It is the same as one in France suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.
“the statues of genocidal, secularist extremists like Robespierre removed,” Well, first you will have to prove that Robespierre was a genocidal (wich genocide are you talking about? Well, I know as your reference comes from Royalist anti-republican publication: For your info, never existed. If the counter-revolution –who was the first one to kill Priests favourable to the revolution, by the way, small detail, lost it is because the town and ports didn’t allowed the British fleet to debark troops and munitions to the insurgeants). They were part of the "genocided" population, the vast majority of it. Not saying that the repression against the Vendean and Normandy insurrection wasn't harsh. It was. Troops were not nice in the XVII Century.
Of course, you will have to prove that Robespierre was a secularist and an extremist (better historians tried and failed). The man was for the right for woman to vote, against slavery, had a speech against the war launched by Louis the XVI who did sent the French Army plans to his Brother in Law).
History for you: “As a member of the Estates-General, the Constituent Assembly and the Jacobin Club, he opposed the death penalty and advocated the abolition of slavery, while supporting equality of rights, universal male suffrage and the establishment of a republic. He opposed dechristianisation of France, war with Austria and the possibility of a coup by the Marquis de Lafayette. As a member of the Committee of Public Safety, he was an important figure during the period of the Revolution commonly known as the Reign of Terror, which ended a few months after his arrest and execution in July 1794 following the Thermidorian reaction. The Thermidorians accused him of being the "soul" of the Terror, although his guilt in the brutal excesses of the Terror has not been proven.” Wikipedia
He was in fact executed by the ones, recalled by him to Paris to explain themselves about their acts, who committed the atrocities.
Funny how things are…
“Sacking people for expressing political and ideological convictions is the restriction on the freedom of speech you oppose so much.” To be a racist is not an opinion, it is an offense. You can't be openly a Nazi. You have to hind it. Political and ideological against the law are illegal, so they are offenses. Again, to call to murder others is not an opinion, it is an offence. How many times will I have to say it?
“suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.” I like the JUST. Well, to agree with murder is an offense. To promote murder is an offense. JUST killed 4 Jews: that is not THAT much (many), worth admiring no?
Even you “suspected” is funny: Cold blood obscurantist Muslim extremist killed 4 Jews in a Casher Supermarket (oops, Rhyfelwyr didn’t notice probably, there is access to food in SUPERMARKETS for non-secularists) and a Police officer according to himself on a video on Youtube.
By the way, still nobody explained me the joke from Dieudonné. That not nice guy, I really want a laugh, especially when hurt-in-their-feelings Muslim mobs are torching Churches.
They have not a clue what atheist means apparently, the idiots.
To be a racist is not an opinion, it is an offense. You can't be openly a Nazi. You have to hind it. Political and ideological against the law are illegal, so they are offenses. Again, to call to murder others is not an opinion, it is an offence. How many times will I have to say it?
Of course it is an opinion, you are of the opinion that this or that person should be killed by someone. I watched the killing of the police officer on liveleak and there were a ton of comments about how the US should bomb Mekka to retaliate and how this would rightfully lead to violence against muslims and mosques in Europe etc. I doubt that any of these commenters were arrested, but according to you they should all be in jail, right?
Did someone actually killed someone following this comments? If yes, yes. I doubt that most of the Nazi leaders killed the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others themselves. Most of them in fact didn't, they just were of the opinion all theses others had to be either enslaved or killed. So were Hitler, Himmler, and others actually guilty of murder? If I follow you and others no. In French Laws, yes, as they are the instigators (in UK laws as well, as defined in the Case 1 in the Crown Court).
A French author was find guilty after the Liberation for precisely this. You can't call day-in day-out for the Jews to be killed and be surprised when someone actually do it. It was HIS opinion that Jews should be killed, so some just did it, but, yeah, it was JUST an opinion...
And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".
So pretending that one race is superior to an other is against the Law.
I might of an opinion to kill you. But until I do it, or someone do it for me, it is an opinion. Now, if I kill you. it stop to be an opinion, as if someone do it following my call.
When someone was killed unlawfully following calls to kill, and you carrying on in inciting more violence, or justifying the murder, yes, you are guilty. When you glorify a racist obscurantist killer for what he did, when you incite in racial and religious violences. That is in the law. It is up to a Court to decide if it was a bad joke, or a real threat. And yes, to incite others to burn Mosques or attack Muslims is a offense. And numbers are not an excuse for not prosecuting. Mob law, lynch law are illegal. You might thing it is a opinion to burn or discriminate minorities, well, not in France and in my experience not in UK.
Montmorency
01-18-2015, 14:01
The employer in relation to the employee shouldn't take upon himself the role of the state towards the citizen.
Which, uh, is precisely what is not happening.
Did someone actually killed someone following this comments? If yes, yes. I doubt that most of the Nazi leaders killed the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and others themselves. Most of them in fact didn't, they just were of the opinion all theses others had to be either enslaved or killed. So were Hitler, Himmler, and others actually guilty of murder? If I follow you and others no. In French Laws, yes, as they are the instigators (in UK laws as well, as defined in the Case 1 in the Crown Court).
Did someone actually kill someone following the statements of that unfunny comedian who got arrested? If no, no?
And then you begin to confuse hierarchies of command and actual orders or even statements of intent with expressing an opinion.
You cannot seriously think that the tweet of that comedian was comparable to an order by Hitler...
Montmorency
01-18-2015, 14:26
You cannot seriously think that the tweet of that comedian was comparable to an order by Hitler...
Babble about free speech all you like, but blasphemy is the limit.
HITLER'S WORD IS THE IMMUTABLE LAW YOU INFIDELS
DO NOT DEMEAN ITS GLORY
Rhyfelwyr
01-18-2015, 15:23
And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".
So is it not discrimination if state schools tell Muslim and Jewish children to eat pork or go hungry?
I believe defending that would require the same line of thinking George Bush used to defend his opposition to gay marriage - strictly speaking, it isn't discrimination, as a gay man can marry a woman the same way a straight man can.
Gilrandir
01-18-2015, 16:08
“suffered the loss of freedom just because he admired some person who is suspected/convicted of killing four jews in a shop.” I like the JUST. Well, to agree with murder is an offense. To promote murder is an offense. JUST killed 4 Jews: that is not THAT much (many), worth admiring no?
Brenus at his best - he can't even read what is written a line above his indignation. Did I say "just killed?" I said "just admired", underscoring that the only crime committed by the comedian was admiration of some unworthy person. Why, Putin admired Goebbels to the face of a bunch of jews and it didn't move you to any righteous anger.
Even you “suspected” is funny: Cold blood obscurantist Muslim extremist killed 4 Jews in a Casher Supermarket (oops, Rhyfelwyr didn’t notice probably, there is access to food in SUPERMARKETS for non-secularists) and a Police officer according to himself on a video on Youtube.
Until a court officially declares someone guilty one can't call him that. Has the court passed any verdict? No? Then he is still a suspect. Learn the rules of democracy.
And to anser to you remark, no racism is not an opinion, as stated in French Constitution: "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion".
So pretending that one race is superior to an other is against the Law.
I might of an opinion to kill you. But until I do it, or someone do it for me, it is an opinion. Now, if I kill you. it stop to be an opinion, as if someone do it following my call.
If I just express a racist opinion and get fired - is it lawful? I mean I didn't call anyone to hurt anyone.
When you glorify a racist obscurantist killer for what he did, when you incite in racial and religious violences.
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 here comes an interesting question of limits on the freedom of speech:
a publication (by its indiscreet policy and flagrant abuse of the freedom of speech) causes damage to the image and/or economy of the country it represents. Should the government of this country limit the publication's activity? For example, if after the growing exasperation and demands from angry mobs the government of, say, Pakistan decides to call off (or not to sign) some contracts with France which will result in loss of jobs in France, should the finacial loss be recovered from the sky-rocketing revenues of the said publication?
“Did someone actually kill someone following the statements of that unfunny comedian who got arrested? If no, no?” No, some killed 4 Jews before to be glorify by a comedian familiar (and convicted) with and of anti-Semitism. So, once again, supporting racist (or not racist) killing is an offense.
“You cannot seriously think that the tweet of that comedian was comparable to an order by Hitler...” Me? Certainly not, but if it is question of number, what is your line in the sand? I am not the one saying racism is just an opinion...
“So is it not discrimination if state schools tell Muslim and Jewish children to eat pork or go hungry?” Oh yes, it is, but fanatic religious Catholics used a gap in the law. You see, catering for food supply is, thanks to Sarkozy (Chanoine of Latran) private. So the mayor requests some food, and no one can tell him what to order. And yes, it is not in the power of the law to oblige pupils to eat some food, nor is it in the power of the law to oblige a mayor to order different kind of food. That is where the obscurantist religious fanatic and Nazi are good: twisting the words and the laws. I am as horrified as you by this discrimination. But obscurantist catholic religious fanatic mayor can always say that pupils are not forced to eat, and can bring food from home, as it a service provided and paid for by the local tax-payers.
“Why, Putin admired Goebbels to the face of a bunch of Jews and it didn't move you to any righteous anger.” What Putin admired in Goebbels was the fact he knew how to create propaganda, if memory serves. Typical of you to try to mix-up things. Ooops, I just realise it is perhaps not intended…
You can say you admire Hitler for his political flair, his ability to use modern technology (first to use intensively airplanes to go from rally to rally,) but you can’t admire him for his racism and deny the Holocaust.
“Has the court passed any verdict? No? Then he is still a suspect. Learn the rules of democracy.” :laugh4:, Learn rule of law: A dead person can’t be put on trial. Defending him/herself would be a problem… Perhaps turning tables…:laugh4:
“If I just express a racist opinion and get fired - is it lawful? I mean I didn't call anyone to hurt anyone.” Well, yes, happened in UK at least. I don’t understand what you don’t understand. Illegal is illegal. Yes, if you take money that is not yours, you can be fired, even if you didn’t mean harm, same as racist remark. The main problem is to determine is a remark was meant to be racist, and I grant you it is not always fair and nice.
“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.” So your solution is not to blame the ones who burn and kill, but the one who are killed… Nice. Obscurantists Religious Muslims will get it, at one moment. They are not above the laws.
Can I remind you, that, without the killing, no drawings would been published at that scale... Just saying.
So, let’s say that Catholic France decided that it is enough for the Muslims to pretend to have a so-called prophet, and UK to blaspheme of the Holly Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and ban all Eastern Churches to worship Icons as it is blaspheme to worship images and start to burn and kill, and put bombs everywhere, will you finally understand you can’t mock the Holly Catholic Religion, and finally stop to blaspheme as it hurt really the Catholic France in her feeling?
The most funny is nobody seems to realise how racists the obscurantist religious fanatics (Muslim in this case) are: they burned Churches because atheists’ publication. These idiots are so racist and stupid in their dark mind that they are unable to make a difference between Christians (even an Evangelical church burned in Mali): the same one defending the right for Churches to be exempted of criticism and satire.
“France which will result in loss of jobs in France, should the financial loss be recovered from the sky-rocketing revenues of the said publication?” Will Ukraine pay for the loss of jobs if Russia decides to call-off the deal for the war-ships that Holland decided to postpone the delivery of?
Montmorency
01-18-2015, 18:32
Gilrandir, let me make it simple. If I get fired for glorifying racism, it's no different in the eyes of the law than if I were fired for attacking racism - as long as the employer-in-question is not the government itself.
Rhyfelwyr
01-18-2015, 19:39
Gilrandir, let me make it simple. If I get fired for glorifying racism, it's no different in the eyes of the law than if I were fired for attacking racism - as long as the employer-in-question is not the government itself.
The principles of free speech do not just concern state censorship - employers do not have the right to take away all the human rights of their employees upon signing a contract, and sacking somebody for using their right to free speech would almost certainly be unfair grounds for dismissal and indeed illegal. Free speech doesn't just give the government a negative role in not censoring things, it gives it a positive role in ensuring that other bodies do not take away peoples freedoms.
classical_hero
01-18-2015, 21:42
“How about "be nice to everyone nonwithstanding his/her faith/absence of it"?” Great for me. It is what atheism is.
I am just wondering how the victims of Stalin and Mao would feel about this statement. Considering the millions they killed.
As usual in the Muslim world is that they lash out at either the Jews or Christians. It is hardly surprising the only woman killed at CH was a woman of Jewish descent. And the attack on the Kosher market was part of the plan and many people wondered why female police officer was killed, but she was near a Jewish school, trying to protect it from attack and got killed as a result. But in countries where Islam is in control we are seeing attacks on Christians. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/gaza-graffiti-on-french-cultural-center.html#.VLwZWaKTJpg
Where they tagged this on the side, which was curiously missing from the English version. The Arabic means "God Damn you, o worshippers of the Cross."
https://i1160.photobucket.com/albums/q485/classical_hero/french2Bculture4_zpsc7a87d06.png
"I am just wondering how the victims of Stalin and Mao would feel about this statement. Considering the millions they killed." In the name of atheism? Do you put on Christianity the Belgium Congo genocide, as the King of Belgium was a Christian? Stalin was a former student in Religion, and no one knows what Mao did believe. Hey, your forgot Pol Pot, but at least you didn't put Hitler. That is usually what the ones trying the mix-up atheism and dictatorship do... Try again.
That just sickens me...there is no congruention between the subject spoken to in the first: the curse of God be uponyou (pl.) oh worshipper (sg.) of the Cross. The word for worshipper, ‘abd, should be in the plural: ‘abîd. Freedom of expression should be extended to people that make this kind of mistake in God's holy language.
But I digress. 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. 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.
To put it in different terms: we have all decided that in our respective societies (Dutch, French, English, German...etc) there should be the possibility for all people to express -- more-or-less without fear of repercussions -- our opinions freely. However, there is a serious problem when it comes to the reciprocity of this point of view: you feel that violent Islamists have the right to express their opinion. Violent Islamists feel that they have the right to express their opinion. So up unto that point everything's great. Express an opinion that is critical of this group of Islamists though, and you're risking your life.
Seeing the degree to which people on these forums go to slam Charlie Hebdo or French Republicanism is frankly just sickening. I can only speak for myself, but I have a huge respect to the history of satire in France, and the argument that the cartoons harm "the socio-economically marginalised group of French Muslims" is so incredibly daft that it just feels like trolling at one point -- especially when I see articles written by British journalists: maybe some of them are still feeling bad about the 100 year war. More seriously: I have no idea what feeds this kind of poorly-disguised anti-French sentiment.
To all those that say that radical Islamism -- yes, radical Islamism; not radical Islam -- is not a threat to Western society is fooling themselves. It's an incredibly naive thought that will only do harm. Does that mean that we should pre-emptively tone down criticis of a particular religion? That's insane. I have actually been positively surprised by the general response by and to the Muslim communities in Europe after the shooting, and I think it would be the same kind of insane to suddenly have this knee-jerk reaction to everything that has anything to do with their religion. If I were a Muslim, I'd be more insulted by the fact that everyone thinks that I'd literally explode at the very first perceived slight towards Muhammad. But maybe, that's why I'm not a Muslim.
I think that a lot of what's happening today with relation to violent Islamism has to do with the fact that it's a wounded animal, and although I'm not a hunter, I understand that they are the most dangerous -- but it can't go on much longer. So kill it with laughter, and vive la liberté.
To all those that say that radical Islamism -- yes, radical Islamism; not radical Islam -- is not a threat to Western society is fooling themselves. It's an incredibly naive thought that will only do harm.
In what way exactly? Do you think ISIS could conquer us or that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks or maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?
In what way exactly?
I'm glad you asked!
Do you think ISIS could conquer us
No.
that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks
No. In your mind, terror attacks are only threatening when they could destroy entire populations or..? Don't you think that the attacks themselves are enough of a threat?
maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?
Mostly this though. Self-censorship would mean that the terrorists won, to use an expression
No. In your mind, terror attacks are only threatening when they could destroy entire populations or..? Don't you think that the attacks themselves are enough of a threat?
A threat to what? To my life? So far dying to a terror attack seems about as likely as getting hit by lightning, how afraid are you of lightnings? They are certainly a threat, but I see bigger threats to my life everywhere around me. They're only a threat to our way of life because we make them one by pretending we are scared for our lives.
Mostly this though. Self-censorship would mean that the terrorists won, to use an expression
Yes. I will also not deny that some groups of people may be in more danger than I am. My point is that we should go on, let the police deal with terrorist attacks using decent police work (they're actually not that bad at that sort of work usually, even without us spending millions on spyware for everyone) and take care of some issues that are more likely to kill us anytime soon and also rather preventable. The more money we let our governments spend on spyware, the more anti-terror laws we establish, the closer the terrorists get to having completely terrorized us, if that makes any sense.
Montmorency
01-19-2015, 01:39
The principles of free speech do not just concern state censorship - employers do not have the right to take away all the human rights of their employees upon signing a contract, and sacking somebody for using their right to free speech would almost certainly be unfair grounds for dismissal and indeed illegal. Free speech doesn't just give the government a negative role in not censoring things, it gives it a positive role in ensuring that other bodies do not take away peoples freedoms.
Not a chance. Anarcho-syndicalist fantasies are not the extant reality.
In what way exactly? Do you think ISIS could conquer us or that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks or maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?
They can't kill us but they can change us, cue, the cancelled pegida protests. Police can't/won't protecf peacefull protesters.
“In what way exactly?” I think Europe/USA are a side-show, not the real battle-field. What ISIS and other Boko Haram are trying to achieve is the predominance over the Muslims World. Their leaders perfectly know they will not change Europe, but in killing in Paris they terrorise the Muslim populations. It is part of a global policy to subjugate the local populations, as the throwing the gays from high buildings. When time to normalise relationship with the West will come (if they win), they will happily hand-over all the “westerners” jihadists to their countries of origins, keeping some in reserve in case of need.
Each time n attack is launched on “West”, they increase their grip on the Muslim world. Look how the Wahhabis point of view is (even the clothing) spread around the Muslim World. Thanks to years of funding Mosques and making sure that the preachers teaching Islam are from their sect, the Saudis insured they are the leading power. However, as often, they were out-flanked by even more extremists.
It is a mob war for territories and markets.
Not so sure about mosques, they are in general very cooperative with the police (at least here), and radicals are denied entry. Was curious what I would see, only saw old men and got a cup of tea that was way too sweet. But yeah it's the muslim population that have the most to fear for these guys and are the most in danger, they are terrified of them. As welcome as the inquisition.
Gilrandir
01-19-2015, 10:34
“Why, Putin admired Goebbels to the face of a bunch of Jews and it didn't move you to any righteous anger.” What Putin admired in Goebbels was the fact he knew how to create propaganda, if memory serves. Typical of you to try to mix-up things. Ooops, I just realise it is perhaps not intended…
You can say you admire Hitler for his political flair, his ability to use modern technology (first to use intensively airplanes to go from rally to rally,) but you can’t admire him for his racism and deny the Holocaust.
Can you admire his pictures? Or his vegetarianism? Can you call a think tank after Goebbels if you admire only his propaganda skills? It is way too arbitrary to draw a line between what you can and what you can't admire in a villain. And who is to draw the line?
“Has the court passed any verdict? No? Then he is still a suspect. Learn the rules of democracy.” :laugh4:, Learn rule of law: A dead person can’t be put on trial. Defending him/herself would be a problem… Perhaps turning tables…:laugh4:
"Guilty" is a verdict that can only be passed by a court. 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.
Yes, if you take money that is not yours, you can be fired, even if you didn’t mean harm, same as racist remark.
Taking money is intended or unintended theft, thus a crime, racist remark is not. If the latter was, the prisons would be full of such convicts.
“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.” So your solution is not to blame the ones who burn and kill, but the one who are killed…
My solution is a fork: be nice to the people around or fortify your house.
Can I remind you, that, without the killing, no drawings would been published at that scale... Just saying.
Then comes more violence and more drawings in response, and then more drawings in response to the response... A vicious circle without any way out. Battling evil with evil. Meanwhile, to sum up what we currently have:
1. Violence is aimed at people who have NOTHING TO DO with Charlie Ebdo, unless sharing citizenship and/or confession.
2. Charlie Ebdo is reaping huge income.
“France which will result in loss of jobs in France, should the financial loss be recovered from the sky-rocketing revenues of the said publication?” Will Ukraine pay for the loss of jobs if Russia decides to call-off the deal for the war-ships that Holland decided to postpone the delivery of?
I was talking of a government which can try to redress the losses caused by indiscretions of ITS citizens. AFAIK, Ukraine is not a part of France yet, so Holland can have no legal and/or financial claim over its actions (if indeed Ukraine is to blame in suspending Mistral delivery; perhaps Holland can be blamed in short-sighted policy which amounted to delivering weapons to an aggressor).
I am just wondering how the victims of Stalin and Mao would feel about this statement. Considering the millions they killed.
Stalin and Mao were practising leaders who may be blamed in misusing the philosophical theory they tried to implement. The said theory sounded perfect: they wanted to build a communist paradise in which everyone got what he wanted and contributed freely to the common well-being. They just didn't care that to build it some millions of people must be sacrificed.
But I digress. 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".
Let me expand:
"well when in this neighborhood you wear skirts of that length and don't have a baseball bat in your purse, don't be surprised that you ended up raped"
That's what I meant.
I have actually been positively surprised by the general response by and to the Muslim communities in Europe after the shooting, and I think it would be the same kind of insane to suddenly have this knee-jerk reaction to everything that has anything to do with their religion. If I were a Muslim, I'd be more insulted by the fact that everyone thinks that I'd literally explode at the very first perceived slight towards Muhammad. But maybe, that's why I'm not a Muslim.
Perhaps, this is the opinion which is symptomatic to understanding the western approach i.e. incredulity at what has happened and is happening: I am not a Muslim, I don't understand why are you so overreacting. If I were a Muslim I wouldn't.
And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over the world and stop poking the hyena with a stick.
In what way exactly? Do you think ISIS could conquer us or that they wipe out our entire non-muslim populations using terror attacks or maybe that we're going to tear ourselves apart discussing it?
They could certainly help radicalising a big part of the muslim population during harsh times; such as during prolonged economic collapse and mass-unemployment that follows. Create a little mini-Balkan for us.
And I'm not on the staff of Charlie Ebdo, but if I were I would apologize to Muslims all over the world and stop poking the hyena with a stick.
Hyenas don't have citizenship in the West for a reason. (well, several)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.