#JeSuisCharlie

fred, how enlightened of you.
not.
don't blame the religion, blame the freedom-hating assholes who are doing the killing - and kill them.
 
mfunnell said:
That does make things rather too context-dependent (or perhaps not; who knows). I'm not easily offended and even if I were deeply offended I'm not going to kill anyone over it. Does that mean that someone who will kill if they're mildly miffed should dictate the terms of public discussion?

...Mike
Click to expand...

No.
Of course not.
But we should also be aware that, when we say it's "Freedom of Speech" it does not give us the "right" to ridicule a belief system for the sake of ridicule lest we end up going down a road we may not want to travel.

Take the "killing" aspect out of it; for the moment.

If I were to say "Chinks are idiots and fools" or "Jews are jackasses" or "Blacks are a bunch of ignorant lame people" and I hide behind the "freedom of speech" moniker, does that mean my comments are "ok"? That it's perfectly alright to state such things? I do believe, and you folks in the U.S. can correct me if I'm wrong, that there are limits to "freedom of speech" - limits that are there to avoid inciting people to violence (if I am correct) - hence "Hate Speech" laws that exist (at least on the books up here in Canada).

Review the case of Ernst Zundel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Zündel - what about his "freedom of speech"?

So, why, if the case of such things is not allowed or considered "Hate Speech" against one group is it permitted or not considered "Hate Speech" against another?

Again, I do not condone the killing of innocents - this goes beyond that since we have entered into the discussion surrounding "freedom". Those that died have a right to be alive since they did nothing "wrong" but if we're going to talk about the freedom of speech and freedom of the press then we have to see just how far those boundaries stretch. Should they stretch ad infinitum or should there be (as there appears that there are) limits?
 
Every religion has killed in the name of their God the Jews are no exceptions it was just a very long time ago the same applies to pretty much every other religion too including secularism. More people were killed in the name of secularism than in any other "religion". The NAZIS saw themselves as secular, Stalin saw himself as secular they just had an ersatz-religion. The muslims were once the leading thinkers, then came the osmanian empire which ended the golden age of islam pretty quickly and the 20th century islamic terrorism is also more revanchism for colonial times. The French weren't really nice to the muslims in Algeria and other places when they ruled.
 
The forum lefties claims what this magazine is racist. I looked at their cartoons,
It is complete nonsense. They are after idiots at any religion, color of skin and race.
This magazine was closed once because they criticized French president.
Muslims are after them, but also Jewish. But Western Church which a.s was also kicked by them is naturally forgiven.
The only bigots those days are those who are questioning the Freedom of Speech.
 
no limits, dave, no limits.
except for shouting fire in theater, of course.
freedom-loving people have to live with the noise created by those who articulate their hatred.
we do not have to listen to them.
 
paulfish4570 said:
no limits, dave, no limits.
except for shouting fire in theater, of course.
freedom-loving people have to live with the noise created by those who articulate their hatred.
we do not have to listen to them.
Click to expand...

I would agree but what I am saying is the laws don't seem to jive with your (or my) sentiments

Cheers,
Dave
 
DominikDUK said:
Every religion has killed in the name of their God the Jews are no exceptions it was just a very long time ago the same applies to pretty much every other religion too including secularism. More people were killed in the name of secularism than in any other "religion". The NAZIS saw themselves as secular, Stalin saw himself as secular they just had an ersatz-religion. The muslims were once the leading thinkers, then came the osmanian empire which ended the golden age of islam pretty quickly and the 20th century islamic terrorism is also more revanchism for colonial times. The French weren't really nice to the muslims in Algeria and other places when they ruled.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While Jews have fought in history, Jews have never started a "holy" war.
 
dcsang said:
and you folks in the U.S. can correct me if I'm wrong, that there are limits to "freedom of speech" - limits that are there to avoid inciting people to violence (if I am correct) - hence "Hate Speech" laws that exist (at least on the books up here in Canada).
Click to expand...
Firstly I'll note (since you were directly responding to me) that I'm not one of those "folks in the U.S." as I'm all the way down here in OZ and not in any way American at all (from either continent). Secondly I'll note that I do rather prefer "freedom of speech" (scare quotes or not) to the alternative, not that we down here have any real constitutional protection of it (though I wish it were otherwise). And thirdly I'll note that in the post you were responding to I rather explicitly noted that no matter how deeply offended I might be I would not resort to violence, and wondered why those who would resort to violence should have the better end of the arguement.

Your response seems to be that they should, simply because they will be violent and I won't be. Hmmm... Is that really "right", for whatever perception of "right" you might have? You are quite correct that Canadian law seems to be tending in that direction and, whether you know it or not, so does Australian law (which rather explicitly follows Canadian precedent in some of these cases). But is that really a good idea? I think not, but perhaps I'm wrong. If I am I'd love to be told why.

...Mike
 
I would say that I disagree too but not for the same motivation.
If we look back at the history there have an horrible (indefinite ?) number of slaughter in every name possible.

Do we have to agree with it ?
It is true they existed, it is true they were horrible but it is no excuse to "want revenge" or to "do the same".
Even at the worst time, they were people fighting for stopping it. These is those people we should look at and not the one doing the killing.
We should look at the one that fought for the freedom and the right for the others.

I do agree that some Charlie Hebdo were bad or misplaced humour ... but take a look further, they don't put everyone in the same bag. When your read the picture, do you think they spoke about you ? About your co-worker ? No they are depicting part of the news in a second (third and sometime bad) degree humour.
 
I think that the Times article I posted suggests that is is exactly the existence of these "hate speech" laws which have given encouragement to the perpetrators of these violent acts.

Far better to grow up and grow a pair ... sticks and stones and all that.

We are not children any more.
 
kbg32 said:
I disagree. While Jews have fought in history, Jews have never started a "holy" war.
Click to expand...

The difference is that one calls it a holy war and other don't but of course religion did play a role in some conflicts. The christians crusade had nothing to do with god or religion either it was just about plundering especially the third one. Religion is often used as an excuse but is rarely the reason. Those three psychos or whatever you want to call them used religion as an excuse to kill, if I remember correctly they just returned from Syria where they fought muslims in the name of Islam, killed innocents etc... so they just like to kill. Nothing else. I think Putin had a point when he said we should stop calling it islamic, christian, etc... terrorism it's terrorism plain and simple and there is no excuse for it.
 
I think the context and intention of a statement make an important difference.

Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, it is about irony and sarcasm. Ok, maybe this irony and sarcasm is not everybody's taste, but these cartoons are not racist statements.

Second, if Europeans and Non-Muslims really behave that bad to Muslims, why don't these guys (Muslims) attac e.g. a French or German military facility to put a sign? This would still be a terror act, but one could say that from their (Muslim) point of view "it makes sense", if terror acts make any sense at all.

But shooting cartoonists is really sick. These gangsters feel strong but they are poor.

Sorry if my English is bad.
 
DominikDUK said:
The christians crusade had nothing to do with god or religion either it was just about plundering especially the third one.
Click to expand...
Now there's a single sentence which requires a book-length refutation. Starting with the difference between initial impetus, overt and (hmmm) less-than-overt motivation, then moving to actual implementation (where the fine Christian residents of Constatinople might have something to say about the 3rd Crusade, for example) then moving on to initial then lasting effects. And more besides. But I rather suspect that single sentence says more about where you're coming from than it says about the Crusades...

...Mike
 
All crusades were about blundering, the fools who went to war believing is was god's will were just useful idiots. It was about projection of power then papal power and the french kings coffer they used religion as an excuse the same with islamic terrorism they use uneducated fools to carry out their agenda but if you look at the people behind those terror organisations they often life like kings yet their followers can often barely read. Why does the house of saud found terrorism because they want to gain influence, same with Iran etc... islam or religion isn't even a footnote in terms of importance.

Finally the picture that started the thread will probably be an important historic photograph sometimes in the near future. I really believe so it shows the worldwide effect of the attack much better than some other newspaper pics. Even in the far reaches of the US people react to the heinous crime commited against the french journalists and police.
 
This thread should be closed right now.

To DominikDUK : if I was the owner of this forum you would be banned for a while, time for you to think twice about what you're writing in the post #3 of that thread the day after 11 people have been killed for having mocked the stupid aspects of a religion in a paper and 1 people has been killed for having tried to arrest the murderers.

What you're writing in the post #40 is more clever.

Written from France.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom