French Paper Offices Bombed Over A Joke

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15550350

Quote:

---

The weekly had said it would publish a special edition on Wednesday to "celebrate" the Ennahda party's election victory in Tunisia and the transitional Libyan executive's statement that sharia law would be the country's main source of law.

---

Ho hum, Another day at the office I suppose.

Fire bombing because of satire. Extremists really don't have a sense of humor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Fire bombing because of satire. Extremists really don't have a sense of humor.

---

I'd say lacking a sense of humour is a prerequisite for extremism.

Nations function best in their natural, homogenous state.

This is what happens when you open the floodgates.

If they really don't want anyone to mess with their prophet, then should let the prophet handle this issue himself. The way they are doing things now, they make their favourite prophet look weak.

I'll mess with whatever prophet that does not bring down smiting lightning from some almighty god. :book2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Nations function best in their natural, homogenous state.

This is what happens when you open the floodgates.

---

:rolleyes:

The problem is when we, as a culture, do not stand up to extremists in every way. To me, one of the most shaming incidents of the western press recently is when nearly every paper backed down from reprinting the Mohammed cartoons from Denmark. It showed the extremists that violence could get them what they wanted.

The paper needs to continue this joke and make it bigger.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

The paper needs to continue this joke and make it bigger.

---

It would increase prophets too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Fire bombing because of satire. Extremists really don't have a sense of humor.

---

Who says these were extremists

Why would you make Mohammed the Editor in Chief? He does not have the qualifications.

Well he was involved in a best seller.

Not even a good joke... unlike Gregoshi's fine display above :2thumbsup:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...ire-and-islam/

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

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

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

---

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

~:smoking:

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregoshi

It would increase prophets too.

---

ROFL :laugh4:

Quote:

---

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

---

Do we blame women for feminism?

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

~:smoking:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

---

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

=][=

I agree that all should be subject to satire.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Who says these were extremists

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

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

Otherwise all this confrontation just alienates people.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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



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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

Let me try again.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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

---

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

4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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

=][=

I agree that all should be subject to satire.

---

Unless they were teleported in, they were imports too.

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

I thought that the comment was funny.

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

---

You sound like Colonel Gadaffi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

You sound like Colonel Gadaffi.

---

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I am against smoking...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

~:smoking:

---

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

4

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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

---

Ya sure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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

~:smoking:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

...Well we kinda did, several times, even back when we called ourselves Norman. We have been kicking the crud out of eachother since the 12th century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

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

---

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

---

I share this sentiment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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



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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

Etc etc

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

lol@ the video.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

lol@ the video.

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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

---

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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

---

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Yes it deserves to be ridiculed.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

~:smoking:

---

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Nothing "deserves" to be satirised or ridiculed.

---

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

Would you read the entire sentence next time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Would you read the entire sentence next time?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuuvi

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

---

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

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

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

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

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

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

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

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

NOTE: This may cause offence.
https://i.imgur.com/Tpt2Z.jpg

---

/applauds them for making the point

Quote:

---

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

---

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. And, thus, ridiculed :wink2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

CR

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

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

---

:laugh4:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Nothing is immune to satire and it should never be.

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

ridicule is always cruel and mean spirited

---

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

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