|
|
Gunmen storm office of satirical magazine in Paris
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-14 05:32:20
In a perfect society freedom of expression can't be absolute because you have to be responsible for what you're saying. And a perfect society is 100 % made of responsible people.
We have a constitutional principle : "one's freedom stops where other's freedom starts".
That means that you must not use your freedom to harm somebody else. In other words, freedom isn't absolute because you have to be responsible and this responsibility is the sine qua non condition for equality which is another of our major constitutional principles.
Key phrase is harming someone.
Making fun of a religion is not causing physical harm, it is not slander/libel, it is not inciting violence, and it is not causing a panic.
If a government or officials in official capacity are using your religion to discriminate, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals choosing not to hire, rent, sell, etc to a person based on their religion, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals making a joke at the expense of a religion = not causing harm.
Individuals killing or inciting violence over a joke = causing harm.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2015-01-14 14:35:20
You like Voltaire quotes?
How about this one:
Quote: [The Jewish nation] dares spread an irreconcilable hatred against all nations; it revolts against all its masters. Always superstitious, always avid of the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous, crawling in misfortune, and insolent in prosperity. Here are what were the Jews in the eyes of the Greeks and the Romans who could read their books. —Voltaire, Essai sur les mœurs (1756) Tome 1, page 186
By the way, I'm not quoting Voltaire here because I agree with him, I'm just pointing out that you might want to find a more inspirational and decent source for quotes, seeing as the man was a racist bigot. 1. It was a summation, not a quote.
2. What is your point? Name me someone well known from the 1700's who wasn't a racist or bigot. Before WWII ended many influential people around the world supported eugenics. Many places and people still do.
3. The point of the summary was lost on you if you only looked at the person saying it. Keep the good and discard the bad.
No the point was lost on you. Pasting some quote by someone who never actually said it because you're too lazy to read history.
What use is a quote about principles by someone who never said it, or lived it?
What kind of inspiration are you drawing from that?
Or are you just posting whatever quotes seem practical for the moment?
Here's a quote for you:
Quote: All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
 Asura.Ccl
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1998
By Asura.Ccl 2015-01-14 14:45:03
So Al-Qaida yemen made a video saying they did it can we just go bomb them?
Also people from Eu that does to Syria/Iraq to fight should just be jailed to death if they come back
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-14 14:47:19
So, have we come to the conclusion that the terrorist attack in Paris was the Jews fault yet?
 Asura.Fondue
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2446
By Asura.Fondue 2015-01-14 19:06:24
I'm still confused why all these people are saying the terrorists were not true muslims?
 Cerberus.Detzu
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 869
By Cerberus.Detzu 2015-01-14 23:17:15
In a perfect society freedom of expression can't be absolute because you have to be responsible for what you're saying. And a perfect society is 100 % made of responsible people.
We have a constitutional principle : "one's freedom stops where other's freedom starts".
That means that you must not use your freedom to harm somebody else. In other words, freedom isn't absolute because you have to be responsible and this responsibility is the sine qua non condition for equality which is another of our major constitutional principles.
Key phrase is harming someone.
Making fun of a religion is not causing physical harm, it is not slander/libel, it is not inciting violence, and it is not causing a panic.
If a government or officials in official capacity are using your religion to discriminate, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals choosing not to hire, rent, sell, etc to a person based on their religion, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals making a joke at the expense of a religion = not causing harm.
Individuals killing or inciting violence over a joke = causing harm.
Why then does a humourist or cartoonist get sued for words that hasn't caused any harm?
One have to be dumb to incite violence on any medias when you can just play with people's fear.
See? No harm done.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-14 23:19:33
In a perfect society freedom of expression can't be absolute because you have to be responsible for what you're saying. And a perfect society is 100 % made of responsible people.
We have a constitutional principle : "one's freedom stops where other's freedom starts".
That means that you must not use your freedom to harm somebody else. In other words, freedom isn't absolute because you have to be responsible and this responsibility is the sine qua non condition for equality which is another of our major constitutional principles.
Key phrase is harming someone.
Making fun of a religion is not causing physical harm, it is not slander/libel, it is not inciting violence, and it is not causing a panic.
If a government or officials in official capacity are using your religion to discriminate, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals choosing not to hire, rent, sell, etc to a person based on their religion, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals making a joke at the expense of a religion = not causing harm.
Individuals killing or inciting violence over a joke = causing harm.
Why then does a humourist or cartoonist get sued for words that hasn't caused any harm?
One have to be dumb to incite violence on any medias when you can just play with people's fear.
See? No harm done. Out of all those lawsuits, how many of them do the "injured party" actually win at? If you find one, can you post it here?
Cerberus.Detzu
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 869
By Cerberus.Detzu 2015-01-14 23:24:05
So, have we come to the conclusion that the terrorist attack in Paris was the Jews fault yet?
I hope it won't. But the simple fact that you thought about it makes me wonder how many people think it's jews fault.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-14 23:26:26
So, have we come to the conclusion that the terrorist attack in Paris was the Jews fault yet?
I hope it won't. But the simple fact that you thought about it makes me wonder how many people think it's jews fault. That was a sarcastic question.
People will automatically blame Jews for pretty much everything wrong in the world anyway. It looked like on page 8 that people were starting to do that, blame them for something completely unrelated to them.
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-14 23:32:55
No the point was lost on you. Pasting some quote by someone who never actually said it because you're too lazy to read history.
This makes no sense. I pointed out in my initial post it was a summary.
Everyone "great" throughout history has faults. If you had read some history you would know this.
I'm still waiting for you to name some people who weren't racists or bigots in the 1700's.
Quote: What use is a quote about principles by someone who never said it, or lived it?
What kind of inspiration are you drawing from that? The point was that it summed up what I wanted to say. That is why you use quotes.
I find lots of things people say offensive, but I'm not out blowing them up or inciting violence. In fact I think you should be allowed and encouraged to voice your opinion as long as it is not libel/sladner, incite violence, act as a threat, or cause a panic.
Quote: Or are you just posting whatever quotes seem practical for the moment?
Here's a quote for you:
Quote: Quote: All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
That is again, what quotes are good for.
Adolf Hilter is right in this quote. Is he less right because he was an ***? No. He's still an *** and he's still accurate in this statement.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-14 23:46:37
Why then does a humourist or cartoonist get sued for words that hasn't caused any harm?
One have to be dumb to incite violence on any medias when you can just play with people's fear.
See? No harm done.
Getting sued means jack crap. That just requires filing some paperwork. Having a judgement in your favor is different.
The lawsuit against this magazine in 2007 was dismissed.
Inciting violence means explicitly encouraging violence. It does not mean someone who got their panties in a wad over a cartoon who went out and started a riot or killed someone. That is the individual(s) fault, not the cartoonist.
 Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-01-15 11:37:33
What I don't really like about this is how everyone on the media is calling the dead illustrators as heroes. Just cause they died? They were troll at best..just cause you are a victim of something it doesn't make you a hero..
By Bloodrose 2015-01-15 11:42:34
It wasn't that they died.
It's the fact that, even against previous violence, and threats of violence, they still continued their work and held onto their principles, where many would have simply kowtowed to fear of harm.
Sticking to your principles only matters when faced with something that challenges them, or makes them inconvenient.
Personally, I don't think they are heroes, but as big a *** as they were collectively, they didn't back down, or give up on freedom of speech and freedom of expression when threatened repeatedly.
Of course, at that point, one could argue the value of life, and their stupidity.
Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-01-15 11:47:24
Apparently there's been another attack in Liegi(Belgium), 3 people died, but they didn't say much yet.
Asura.Ccl
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1998
By Asura.Ccl 2015-01-15 12:17:54
Looks like they caught some terrorist a press conference is happening in about 1h
By Blazed1979 2015-01-15 15:45:03
Free Speech? lol... yeah its perfectly fine to insult almost 2 billion people but go anywhere near criticizing Israel and you can now get arrested..
Awesome!
YouTube Video Placeholder
[+]
 Bismarck.Leneth
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
By Bismarck.Leneth 2015-01-19 13:08:20
@Moderators
Would posting a yet to be drawn caricature of Mohammed with a stick hitting on a filled sack, with the labels IS, Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda on it, saying #NotInMyName be in consensus with the forum rules?
 Valefor.Endoq
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2015-01-19 21:39:19
Fake story.
By charlo999 2015-01-20 06:08:21
In a perfect society freedom of expression can't be absolute because you have to be responsible for what you're saying. And a perfect society is 100 % made of responsible people.
We have a constitutional principle : "one's freedom stops where other's freedom starts".
That means that you must not use your freedom to harm somebody else. In other words, freedom isn't absolute because you have to be responsible and this responsibility is the sine qua non condition for equality which is another of our major constitutional principles.
Key phrase is harming someone.
Making fun of a religion is not causing physical harm, it is not slander/libel, it is not inciting violence, and it is not causing a panic.
If a government or officials in official capacity are using your religion to discriminate, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals choosing not to hire, rent, sell, etc to a person based on their religion, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals making a joke at the expense of a religion = not causing harm.
Individuals killing or inciting violence over a joke = causing harm.
Why then does a humourist or cartoonist get sued for words that hasn't caused any harm?
One have to be dumb to incite violence on any medias when you can just play with people's fear.
See? No harm done. Out of all those lawsuits, how many of them do the "injured party" actually win at? If you find one, can you post it here?
Are we now to determine the morality of humans by the outcomes of these cases?
Is it right because the courts say it is?
If a person takes up a religion in their lives, to the point of full belief and dedicate their lives to it, then how is degrading and mocking that religion not a personal attack causing harm?
It's bullying and goading.
Is this what we should expect from extremely influential positions in society. Where, no matter how insignificant it looks has a pronounced influence on a large section of people.
Let's agree that the repercussions are extreme and unjust. That people should just 'deal with it'.
But not everyone has the capacity to do that as history tells us. And we will never get to that point.
So what logic does it go by to goad behind a veil of free speech (which I agree isn't really a moral free speech) if it causes so much harm.
If it comes to a choice of simply forgoing that (total free speech over human morality) in order to save lives and keep peace, surely it's a small price to pay. Logically I'd choose that every time.
Personally I don't see the purpose of these cartoons anyway. They aren't funny and don't offer anything but mocking a person. And I'd argue that people that found it funny, to poke fun at others and discredit, need to look at what they interpret free speech to represent, to all parties.
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2015-01-20 06:19:23
So, have we come to the conclusion that the terrorist attack in Paris was the Jews fault yet?
I hope it won't. But the simple fact that you thought about it makes me wonder how many people think it's jews fault. That was a sarcastic question.
People will automatically blame Jews for pretty much everything wrong in the world anyway. It looked like on page 8 that people were starting to do that, blame them for something completely unrelated to them.
The European hatred for Jews goes back to before the dark ages. They have frequently conducted purges and persecutions. That antisemitism is what fueled zionism from a tiny spark into a roaring flame. The funny thing is that a thousand years ago, it was safer to be a Jew in West Asia under Islamic rule then it was in Christian Europe. And before the usual suspects come in trying to defend their practice of prejudge, the Romani were historically persecuted just as bad as the Jews but since they were never well organized nobody ever remembers them.
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 11:37:32
In a perfect society freedom of expression can't be absolute because you have to be responsible for what you're saying. And a perfect society is 100 % made of responsible people.
We have a constitutional principle : "one's freedom stops where other's freedom starts".
That means that you must not use your freedom to harm somebody else. In other words, freedom isn't absolute because you have to be responsible and this responsibility is the sine qua non condition for equality which is another of our major constitutional principles.
Key phrase is harming someone.
Making fun of a religion is not causing physical harm, it is not slander/libel, it is not inciting violence, and it is not causing a panic.
If a government or officials in official capacity are using your religion to discriminate, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals choosing not to hire, rent, sell, etc to a person based on their religion, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals making a joke at the expense of a religion = not causing harm.
Individuals killing or inciting violence over a joke = causing harm.
Why then does a humourist or cartoonist get sued for words that hasn't caused any harm?
One have to be dumb to incite violence on any medias when you can just play with people's fear.
See? No harm done. Out of all those lawsuits, how many of them do the "injured party" actually win at? If you find one, can you post it here?
Are we now to determine the morality of humans by the outcomes of these cases?
Is it right because the courts say it is?
If a person takes up a religion in their lives, to the point of full belief and dedicate their lives to it, then how is degrading and mocking that religion not a personal attack causing harm?
It's bullying and goading.
Is this what we should expect from extremely influential positions in society. Where, no matter how insignificant it looks has a pronounced influence on a large section of people.
Let's agree that the repercussions are extreme and unjust. That people should just 'deal with it'.
But not everyone has the capacity to do that as history tells us. And we will never get to that point.
So what logic does it go by to goad behind a veil of free speech (which I agree isn't really a moral free speech) if it causes so much harm.
If it comes to a choice of simply forgoing that (total free speech over human morality) in order to save lives and keep peace, surely it's a small price to pay. Logically I'd choose that every time.
Personally I don't see the purpose of these cartoons anyway. They aren't funny and don't offer anything but mocking a person. And I'd argue that people that found it funny, to poke fun at others and discredit, need to look at what they interpret free speech to represent, to all parties.
I agree with 90% of this except for the "just deal with it" part.
I can't overstate how wrong the killings were. Its wrong when none combatants anywhere are killed. Its wrong when violence is used for anything other than defense. As disgusting and offensive the drawings are to me, and as much as it makes me feel like there is no hope for humanity, violence of any kind never crossed my mind, or the minds of the overwhelming majority of muslims.
However, we now know
-the assassins were trained in Yemen.
-Charlie Hebdo was an easy target.
-Al Qaeda in Yemen wanted to create further gaps and obstacles between Muslims and western society.
Why?
Because I think we've come a long way in the past 14 years. That isn't to say that its been a wonderful journey to where we were pre-Charlie Hebdo shootings, but we were mid dialogue and the moderates were winning, to the distress of the fanatics.
Just before the Charlie Hebdo shootings there were counter demonstrations in Germany against Anti-Islam demonstrations.
Europe was taking huge steps forward to counter the US's uneven brokerage of the Palestinian/Israeli issue.
The Arabian Gulf states were and still are the main force fighting ISIS alongside the US.
As a Muslim, I can tell you the assassins and terrorists who killed the staff of Charlie Hebdo do not represent me, or anyone I know, or any mainstream thought in this region.
Please understand that just because we see the horror and crimes of the terrorists does not mean the Charlie Hebdo magazine isn't disgusting.
Anytime things are reduced to "either or", "black and white", "good vs evil" the victim is always truth and rationality.
I mean, just watch this... how fuggin ridiculouse and stupid is this:
YouTube Video Placeholder
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-01-20 12:51:07
In a perfect society freedom of expression can't be absolute because you have to be responsible for what you're saying. And a perfect society is 100 % made of responsible people.
We have a constitutional principle : "one's freedom stops where other's freedom starts".
That means that you must not use your freedom to harm somebody else. In other words, freedom isn't absolute because you have to be responsible and this responsibility is the sine qua non condition for equality which is another of our major constitutional principles.
Key phrase is harming someone.
Making fun of a religion is not causing physical harm, it is not slander/libel, it is not inciting violence, and it is not causing a panic.
If a government or officials in official capacity are using your religion to discriminate, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals choosing not to hire, rent, sell, etc to a person based on their religion, that would be causing harm.
Private companies or individuals making a joke at the expense of a religion = not causing harm.
Individuals killing or inciting violence over a joke = causing harm.
Why then does a humourist or cartoonist get sued for words that hasn't caused any harm?
One have to be dumb to incite violence on any medias when you can just play with people's fear.
See? No harm done. Out of all those lawsuits, how many of them do the "injured party" actually win at? If you find one, can you post it here?
Are we now to determine the morality of humans by the outcomes of these cases?
Is it right because the courts say it is?
If a person takes up a religion in their lives, to the point of full belief and dedicate their lives to it, then how is degrading and mocking that religion not a personal attack causing harm?
It's bullying and goading.
Is this what we should expect from extremely influential positions in society. Where, no matter how insignificant it looks has a pronounced influence on a large section of people.
Let's agree that the repercussions are extreme and unjust. That people should just 'deal with it'.
But not everyone has the capacity to do that as history tells us. And we will never get to that point.
So what logic does it go by to goad behind a veil of free speech (which I agree isn't really a moral free speech) if it causes so much harm.
If it comes to a choice of simply forgoing that (total free speech over human morality) in order to save lives and keep peace, surely it's a small price to pay. Logically I'd choose that every time.
Personally I don't see the purpose of these cartoons anyway. They aren't funny and don't offer anything but mocking a person. And I'd argue that people that found it funny, to poke fun at others and discredit, need to look at what they interpret free speech to represent, to all parties.
When it comes to extremists, everything becomes an offense. You can see this starting to form among the tumblr feminists and hyper-religious zealots. Left or Right, it makes no difference. Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to.
Charlie Hebdo made mockery of everything in a characteristically French way which may be jarring when looked at from an American perspective. Religion and Islam wasn't there only source of mockery and if it draws offense then ignore it. Like our Westboro friends, the trolls are best left to starve. Politicians, Catholics and many other groups were made to feel the fire of satire and Islam isn't immune to it.
To those who can't control their murderous impulses as history tells us deserved to be plowed under with the other murderers, rapists and general psychopaths. If you can't tolerate anyone passing criticism on a prophet then that's a personal problem that you should deal with in private. I'm certainly not going to silence my criticisms because you might feel a bit miffed we're not in complete agreement on what is/isn't a sacred cow.
There is no peace with extremists, even if you keep silent. All you guarantee is a delay on your inevitable execution for offense or complete and utter subjugation to their ludicrous reality. Perhaps the holy texts should have done a paragraph on satire?
[+]
 Ragnarok.Zeig
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1851
By Ragnarok.Zeig 2015-01-20 13:33:32
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »When it comes to extremists, everything becomes an offense. You can see this starting to form among the tumblr feminists and hyper-religious zealots. Left or Right, it makes no difference. Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to.
Charlie Hebdo made mockery of everything in a characteristically French way which may be jarring when looked at from an American perspective. Religion and Islam wasn't there only source of mockery and if it draws offense then ignore it. Like our Westboro friends, the trolls are best left to starve. Politicians, Catholics and many other groups were made to feel the fire of satire and Islam isn't immune to it.
To those who can't control their murderous impulses as history tells us deserved to be plowed under with the other murderers, rapists and general psychopaths. If you can't tolerate anyone passing criticism on a prophet then that's a personal problem that you should deal with in private. I'm certainly not going to silence my criticisms because you might feel a bit miffed we're not in complete agreement on what is/isn't a sacred cow. Not sure what the point of your post is/who you are addressing.
-Condemning the terrorist act happened unanimously here.
-Charlo doesn't strike me as an extremist. Neither does anybody in this thread who expressed their disgust at the cartoons. Unless that counts as extremism in your book.
-Criticism =/= insults. Stop equating the two.
[+]
By charlo999 2015-01-20 13:37:29
Can I just say blazed. The 'just deal with it' reference was directed at brushing off the goading and mocking pictures towards the faiths, as bullying morons, which shouldn't even be given the time of day. Not the horrendous acts of violence. Unless I've read your post wrong.
The difference with mocking religion compared to politics is, politics can have a right or wrong side that can be mocked if proven wrong.
Religion can not be proven right or wrong. So mockery of religion is only based on a persons opinion of it.
Also this (my post)was my opinion across the board in regards to all religions, not just extremists.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to
Stop trying to confuse.
I never made thus claim. Quote me please.
Respect, and treating others how you'd like to be treated isn't appeasement.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 13:41:43
I'm not an extremist, a fundamentalist or a zealot. The only other Muslim I know that is more liberal than I am is Zeig. (Liberal but still recognizes himself as Muslim I should say, because there are lots of "Muslims" who are just that by name only, according to their own self identification)
Still don't agree with Charlie Hebdo. Still have no frigging clue what the purpose of trying to stimulate rage across the muslim world was for. Still don't see any good that came out of it.
Didn't/don't agree with provoking catholics either, or jews, or budhists or any other people. Don't see any benefit in assaulting or attacking people's beliefs or what they hold sacred.
I would never piss on a flag of the US.
I would never piss on anything that a people hold in high regard.
If people want to criticize Islam, they have every right to and we welcome an intellectual and civil debate.
But demonizing the messenger of Islam and slandering his name isn't going to result in that conversation. Its going to polarize the world.
You say you should be free to insult as you please, I question that assumption and right.
Freedom of expression and speech =/= freedom to insult.
EDIT: @Charlo, I understood you correctly ("deal with it").
What I am saying is no we shouldn't just deal with it.
We should be creating counter content. The only legitimate and honourable fight is one that does not involve bloodshed and mindless bigotry and prejudice.
I don't want to generalize, especially with far right wing hawks prowling, but there are certain aspects of Arabian culture that need to addressed. Arabian Culture, unfortunately, is not Islamic.
"No Compulsion in Religion" The Quran.
But Arabs seem to do nothing but enforce their opinions on others and do not allow for discussion of any kind.
Funny to see most of them were there at the Paris March for Charlie Hebdo... including Buttbitch Netenyahoooo of Israhell.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2015-01-20 13:43:50
Freedom of expression and speech = freedom to insult. ftfy
for the record it also means the freedom to be insulted.
Offense is subjective, to try to limit speech because somebody may be offended at the very least is asinine.
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 13:51:13
Freedom of expression and speech = freedom to insult. ftfy
for the record it also means the freedom to be insulted.
Offense is subjective, to try to limit speech because somebody may be offended at the very least is asinine.
What is the punishment for pissing on the American flag where you come from?
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-20 13:54:05
Freedom of expression and speech = freedom to insult. ftfy
for the record it also means the freedom to be insulted.
Offense is subjective, to try to limit speech because somebody may be offended at the very least is asinine.
What is the punishment for pissing on the American flag where you come from? Nothing
It is considered free speech to burn the flag or desecrate it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States
[+]
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-01-20 13:55:06
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »When it comes to extremists, everything becomes an offense. You can see this starting to form among the tumblr feminists and hyper-religious zealots. Left or Right, it makes no difference. Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to.
Charlie Hebdo made mockery of everything in a characteristically French way which may be jarring when looked at from an American perspective. Religion and Islam wasn't there only source of mockery and if it draws offense then ignore it. Like our Westboro friends, the trolls are best left to starve. Politicians, Catholics and many other groups were made to feel the fire of satire and Islam isn't immune to it.
To those who can't control their murderous impulses as history tells us deserved to be plowed under with the other murderers, rapists and general psychopaths. If you can't tolerate anyone passing criticism on a prophet then that's a personal problem that you should deal with in private. I'm certainly not going to silence my criticisms because you might feel a bit miffed we're not in complete agreement on what is/isn't a sacred cow. Not sure what the point of your post is/who you are addressing.
-Condemning the terrorist act happened unanimously here.
-Charlo doesn't strike me as an extremist. Neither does anybody in this thread who expressed their disgust at the cartoons. Unless that counts as extremism in your book.
-Criticism =/= insults. Stop equating the two.
Appeasement is Charlo's argument. Mine is hat extremists don't need some crude French drawings to be thrown into a bluster because they already want you dead for not being exactly like them. So all this talk of curbing violence by not drawing pictures of the prophet or whatever is wash, because the extremists will find you by virtue of their 'divine mission'.
Divine mission to kill or convert by any means necessary a la ISIS.
Criticism is most often taken as personal insult, something you can see on these very boards. So why would it be any different if I tell a guy I don't believe in his prophet or the zany rules that apply? Eating pork can be seen as insulting to monotheists and yet I won't be curbing my swine intake any time soon.
On today's episode of P&R we take a trip to France.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/7/at-least-10-deadinshootingatparissatiricalmagazine.html
Quote: Gunmen stormed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris on Wednesday, leaving at least 12 people dead and sparking a massive manhunt for the killers.
Clad all in black with hoods and machine guns and speaking flawless French, the three attackers, who are now believed to be on the run, forced one of the publication's cartoonists, Corinne Rey, who was at the office with her young daughter, to open the door. In an interview with the newspaper L'Humanité, she said the entire shooting, which left 10 journalists and two police officers dead, lasted about five minutes.
Staff members of the magazine, which has courted controversy and the offense of some Muslims for publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, were in an editorial meeting at the time. The gunmen headed straight for the paper's editor, Stéphane Charbonnier — widely known by his pen name, Charb — killing him and his police bodyguard, said Christophe Crepin, a police union spokesman on the scene.
Minutes later, gunmen were seen walking to a black car waiting below, calmly firing on a police officer, with one of the killers shooting him in the head as he writhed on the ground.
"Hey! We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo," one of the men shouted, according to a video shot from a nearby building and broadcast on French television. The video could not immediately be confirmed by Al Jazeera.
Large numbers of police and ambulances rushed to the scene, where shocked residents spilled into the streets. Reporters also saw bullet-riddled windows and people being carried out on stretchers.
Bernard Cazeneuve, France's interior minister, vowed to "track down the three criminals." He added that "all of our resources will be mobilized so that we can find out who committed this act and make sure they are punished for this act of barbarity." French authorities have said that all school trips and outdoor activities have been canceled while the gunmen are at large.
French President François Hollande headed to the scene shortly after Wednesday's shooting and said that the dead were "cowardly assassinated" and that four others were critically injured. He described the shooting as a "terrorist operation against a newspaper that has been threatened several times." He added that 40 people were being protected in the aftermath of the shooting.
Charlie Hebdo as drawn repeated threats for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, among other controversial features. The newspaper's offices were firebombed in 2011 after a spoof issue featuring a caricature of Muhammad on its cover.
A year later, the magazine published more Muhammad drawings amid an uproar over an anti-Muslim film. The cartoons depicted Muhammad naked and in demeaning or pornographic poses. The French government defended free speech even as it rebuked Charlie Hebdo for fanning tensions.
"We treat the news like journalists. Some use cameras. Some use computers. For us, it's a paper and pencil," the Muhammad cartoonist, who goes by the name Luz, told The Associated Press in 2012. "A pencil is not a weapon. It's just a means of expression."
Charbonnier, among the 10 journalists killed Wednesday, also defended the Muhammad cartoons.
He told Le Monde newspaper two years ago, "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." One of his last cartoons, published in this week's issue, seemed an eerie premonition. "Still no attacks in France," an extremist fighter says. "Wait — we have until the end of January to present our New Year's wishes."
The attack, for which no one has yet claimed responsibility, comes amid what a number of commentators have identified as rising xenophobia in Europe, with thousands of protesters in several German cities rallying earlier this week against Muslim immigration. France's Muslim population of 5 million 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 Paris' Seine-St.-Denis northern suburb.
New York–based advocacy group the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned what its deputy director, Robert Mahoney, called "a brazen assault on free expression in the heart of Europe."
I fear this will only continue to stir the growing xenophobia in Europe against Muslims worldwide. People can keep saying this 'isn't their Islam' but the extremists are the ones dominating the court of public opinion and that can only spell disaster.
|
|
