Org Mobile Site
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.
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.
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.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
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.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.
Originally Posted by Tuuvi:
Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmTry looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.
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.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Looking at paedophilia from a paedophile's point of view makes it seem ok.
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?Looking at paedophilia from a paedophile's point of view makes it seem ok.
Jeez haven't you people ever read To Kill A Mockingbird?
Originally Posted by Hax:
Nothing "deserves" to be satirised or ridiculed.
If it's pretty damn rediculous, of course it doesNothing "deserves" to be satirised or ridiculed.
Would you read the entire sentence next time?
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 betterWould you read the entire sentence next time?
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 shoesNutty 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.
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.
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?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?
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
NOTE: This may cause offence.
https://i.imgur.com/Tpt2Z.jpg
CR
/applauds them for making the point
Originally Posted by :
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 Try looking at it from a Muslim's perspective, and then come tell me that Islam deserves to be ridiculed.
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 themI 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
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?
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?
I'll throw LOL bombs because I've never looked at it like that before!
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 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?
... Never saw that. All I can say is at least mine doesn't come with wings. 
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.
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.
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 imhoridicule is always cruel and mean spirited
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro:
You do have the right to ridicule and it's often good to do so. People often do it in a bad way but that's true for criticism as well. The daily show is dumb but it's not like other news shows aren't.
No, I don't think so. The Daily Show really only holds people up to ridicule, but it is comedy, i.e. funny, and it pitches itself towards the audience, not the object of criticism.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.
There is a profound difference between showing someone up in their own foolishness, and setting out to provoke a negative reaction.
It is also clearly untrue that we have a "right" to ridicule, if we do it is a severely curtailed right. I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?
Originally Posted by Fragony:
Sure, but if satire provokes such a strong reaction cruelty is no more than a blunt instrument. Christians are used to be being treated like that by now, muslims will have to get used to it as well. Oddly enough the same people who are cruel towards christians are sweating pure respect when it comes to islam, not going to go along with that myself. Might look mean but it really isn't imho
Consider, where is the joke in Muhammad with a bomb-shaped Turban if no one reacts? The same with the Muslim kissing another man, it isn't funny. That's an important point - this form of ridicule isn't inherently comedic, it deliberately provokes a negative reaction so we can tutt at the dirty Muslims.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
I always say, if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent, if you just want to insult my beliefs I reserve the right to thump you.
Originally Posted by Nowake:
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.
Oh rubbish, every single God and religion have survived sustained ridicule from their inception up to the present day. The suggestion that you can change someone's beliefs by insulting them is patently untrue.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.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Consider, where is the joke in Muhammad with a bomb-shaped Turban if no one reacts? The same with the Muslim kissing another man, it isn't funny. That's an important point - this form of ridicule isn't inherently comedic, it deliberately provokes a negative reaction so we can tutt at the dirty Muslims.
Actually I think the muslim kissing another man is hilarious but not as they intended, they just had to react and they reacted in a way that isn't offensive, no muslim is going to get worked up over that. And they know it isn't offensive, they are playing it safe. What makes it extra pathetic is that they are satirising a non-existant event because French muslims hardly condemned the attack, they didn't get any further than 'it's wrong to attack but there should be limits to freedom of speech', and the satirical magazine obliges them, cowards. The joke's on them. Consider, where is the joke in Muhammad with a bomb-shaped Turban if no one reacts? The same with the Muslim kissing another man, it isn't funny. That's an important point - this form of ridicule isn't inherently comedic, it deliberately provokes a negative reaction so we can tutt at the dirty Muslims.
extra extra funny, while the magazine was singing the usual hymns of the leftist church 'only a few blabla' thousands of messages rolled in on their facebook of muslims applauding the attack
I always say, if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent, if you just want to insult my beliefs I reserve the right to thump you.
Yet you don't so why would I. But if muslims can't take an innocent joke, go for less innocent, get so nasty that even the most moderate muslim has steam comming from his ears. I'll spare you what that looks like here, would be breaking forum rules anyway
Sorry, Frags, but that would be absolutely useless. The point of satire is to spark intelligent debate concerning the exact nature of certain elements of an ideology, not to make as many people as angry as possible. That's just asking for trouble.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Sorry, Frags, but that would be absolutely useless. The point of satire is to spark intelligent debate concerning the exact nature of certain elements of an ideology, not to make as many people as angry as possible. That's just asking for trouble.
No, that's asking for war.Sorry, Frags, but that would be absolutely useless. The point of satire is to spark intelligent debate concerning the exact nature of certain elements of an ideology, not to make as many people as angry as possible. That's just asking for trouble.
Originally Posted by :
I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?
(...) if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent
(...) Oh rubbish, every single God and religion have survived sustained ridicule from their inception up to the present day
i) Yes, you can; and it's being done all the time; I don't even think gay communities protest that particular type of humour unless for very specific circumstances.I can't, for example, ridicule gay marriage by drawing a cartoon of two men, one being escorted down the aisle in a white dress, can I?
(...) if you want to make a joke about my religion, fine, provided it is either funny or intelligent
(...) Oh rubbish, every single God and religion have survived sustained ridicule from their inception up to the present day
ii) Since the joke is on your belief system, you will very rarely be able to stomach it. No matter, the joke is not being made for your ears.
iii) You are so right mister PVC. Hey, you really take me back with that one, I remember centuries upon centuries during which cracking a joke about Jesus would at most get you burned at the stake. Tops
Any type of ridicule is guaranteed by our freedom of speech. Hate speech disguised as ridicule isn't. The paper cannot be blamed for the later in this case.
Originally Posted by PVC:
No, that's asking for war.
I know many red-blooded chaps who can't wait to die for their God.No, that's asking for war.
I also know there are many sang-froid chaps who will be happy to help them.
Originally Posted by Hax:
Sorry, Frags, but that would be absolutely useless. The point of satire is to spark intelligent debate concerning the exact nature of certain elements of an ideology, not to make as many people as angry as possible. That's just asking for trouble.
Not giving the beards a nice big fat middle-finger in their fundie face is asking for troubleSorry, Frags, but that would be absolutely useless. The point of satire is to spark intelligent debate concerning the exact nature of certain elements of an ideology, not to make as many people as angry as possible. That's just asking for trouble.
Originally Posted by Nowake:
iii) You are so right mister PVC. Hey, you really take me back with that one, I remember centuries upon centuries during which cracking a joke about Jesus would at most get you burned at the stake. Tops
You need to read your history more carefully.iii) You are so right mister PVC. Hey, you really take me back with that one, I remember centuries upon centuries during which cracking a joke about Jesus would at most get you burned at the stake. Tops
Catholics burned hundreds of protestants at the stake, but now there are hundreds of thousands. You can't kill and idea, or beat it into submission.
Does giving any contrarian answer equate to giving a logical contrarian answer? Focus a bit.
The point was that religion cannot tolerate ridicule and has to bloodily insulate itself as best it can.
In order to survive protestant ridicule, the catholics killed as many as they were able. You just gave the perfect example.
The point was that religion cannot tolerate ridicule and has to bloodily insulate itself as best it can.
In order to survive protestant ridicule, the catholics killed as many as they were able. You just gave the perfect example.
Are you guys focusing on the word "ridicule?" Because while you may harass, intimidate, cajole, or whatever some people out of their beliefs you'll create a more entrenched and extreme believer out of others.
Ridicule is a pejorative term practiced by lesser men. You'll have more luck letting someone reach his own conclusion about the faults of his beliefs than by being an ass.
Ridicule is a pejorative term practiced by lesser men. You'll have more luck letting someone reach his own conclusion about the faults of his beliefs than by being an ass.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO