3 gunmen have attacked the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo killing 12 people. The magazine had been threatened repeatedly for printing cartoons ‘offensive’ to Islam. I woke this morning to see a video from the attack. A French cop lay injured on the ground as a masked gunman walked towards him. The cop raised his hand pleading and was then cold-bloodedly executed.
There is a sickness amongst us. I fear the end game. Insanity.
Quoted PostA reply to: @Windy Dill regarding QuoteLinkA reply to: @Daytripper regarding QuoteLinkThe terrorists have won as far as I'm concerned.Oh ■■■■! They’ve implemented Sharia law?
Bacon off the shelves???INVADE!!
Man this 5 prayers a day thing really tests the knees. And which way is Mecca exactly?
In all seriousness this is one reason why there is fragmentation in Islam This is part of why you get Shia and Sunni strands of Islam - Its somehow related to Mohammed and Mecca.
Burqa - Irrelevant to the current discussion - Actually i’d expect this from Rita the Persian princess. People wear all sorts of clothes and in all sorts of styles - Actually some people have appalling taste in clothes - This doesn’t make them terrorist.
Wait…, what…? For realz…? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-13/saudi-cleric-condemns-snowmen-as-anti-islamic/6013480
A reply to: @Henry’s Angry Pills regarding QuoteLink
@ Rossoneri - No, I can't either@ others… Who cares about the artistic/satiric/comical validity of the images?
The press council? (or whoever it is that censors / keeps ethics in check?)Try getting “all Muslims (/Jews / buddhists / catholics etc) ■■■■ goats” published in a national, see how you go.
A reply to: @Incoming! regarding QuoteLink
Quoted PostA reply to: @Windy Dill regarding QuoteLinkA reply to: @Daytripper regarding QuoteLinkThe terrorists have won as far as I'm concerned.Oh ■■■■! They’ve implemented Sharia law?
Bacon off the shelves???INVADE!!
Man this 5 prayers a day thing really tests the knees. And which way is Mecca exactly?
A reply to: @Incoming! regarding QuoteLink
Quoted PostA reply to: @Windy Dill regarding QuoteLinkA reply to: @Daytripper regarding QuoteLinkThe terrorists have won as far as I'm concerned.Oh ■■■■! They’ve implemented Sharia law?
Bacon off the shelves???INVADE!!
Man this 5 prayers a day thing really tests the knees. And which way is Mecca exactly?
Where I come from you can see the golden arches from anywhere.
A reply to: @Windy Dill regarding QuoteLinkA reply to: @Daytripper regarding QuoteLinkThe terrorists have won as far as I'm concerned.Oh ■■■■! They’ve implemented Sharia law?
Bacon off the shelves???INVADE!!
Man this 5 prayers a day thing really tests the knees. And which way is Mecca exactly?
The Age published this Hebdo cartoon. So did the New Yorker.
@ Rossoneri - No, I can't either@ others… Who cares about the artistic/satiric/comical validity of the images?
Try getting “all Muslims (/Jews / buddhists / catholics etc) ■■■■ goats” published in a national, see how you go.
A reply to: @Windy Dill regarding QuoteLink
A reply to: @Daytripper regarding QuoteLinkThe terrorists have won as far as I'm concerned.Oh ■■■■! They’ve implemented Sharia law?
INVADE!!
A reply to: @Daytripper regarding QuoteLink
The terrorists have won as far as I'm concerned.
Oh ■■■■! They’ve implemented Sharia law?
A reply to: @Zebba regarding QuoteLink
@ Rossoneri - No, I can't either
That’s a shame.
Just four Knight cartoons.
A reply to: @Deckham regarding QuoteLink
A reply to: @Zebba regarding QuoteLinkWTF? So when you were having a go at me a few pages ago, was what I said "intentional assault" or "expressing an opinion"?A reply to: @Deckham regarding QuoteLinkPutting religions aside for a moment, and also laying aside murders and murderers.I am of the opinion that an assault can take many forms. It can be emotional and/or mental just as much as physical. Sometimes, words, or images, can hurt as much as, or more than - a punch in the face.
I’m also of the opinion that an assault against someone is wrong and unfair.
I’m also of the opinion that the term ‘freedom of speech’ which used to mean being allowed to dissent and demonstrate against wrong-doings, has been corrupted by opportunists to mean having the licence to insult and hurt anyone you like.
And no matter how many world leaders gather in the streets holding hands chanting ‘peace’ there are, it won’t change my opinion on that.
Yes, but freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from response. You want to express an opinion, you need to be prepared for people to express theirs back, and you may find that confrontational or offensive.The right to an opinion is something that should be respected, but the right to have that opinion respected is not.
If someone says something bigoted, calling them bigoted is not shutting down debate. Sure, someone COULD take offense at being called a bigot, or they could question why someone would call them that in response to them expressing their opinion. The same goes with expressing an opinion and being called an idiot, or ignorant, or getting told to go **** yourself - they are responses to the opinion, and the fact is some opinions are so worthless that they don’t deserve more.
On the other hand, someone expressing an opinion and being told to “shutup you’re just a dumb ■■■■■■/terrorist/woman” is very different to that. In that case you aren’t attacking the expression of an opinion, you are attacking the person.
There is no such thing as freedom from offense. Me expressing the opinion that abortion should be legal, marijuana and other drugs should be legal, god does not exist, etc, are all offensive to someone.
If you think someone attacking your expression of opinion is them attacking you, then you clearly overvalue your opinion.
Strawman.
I specifically mentioned ‘assaulting someone emotional and/or mentally’. Not ‘expressing an opinion’. You can hurt someone with an opinion, and there may not be anything wrong with that, if it was needed. What isn’t needed, is intentional assault.I’ll respond to this argument, but not to something you make up to bring it back to your comfort zone.
A reply to: @Zebba regarding QuoteLink
A reply to: @Deckham regarding QuoteLinkPutting religions aside for a moment, and also laying aside murders and murderers.I am of the opinion that an assault can take many forms. It can be emotional and/or mental just as much as physical. Sometimes, words, or images, can hurt as much as, or more than - a punch in the face.
I’m also of the opinion that an assault against someone is wrong and unfair.
I’m also of the opinion that the term ‘freedom of speech’ which used to mean being allowed to dissent and demonstrate against wrong-doings, has been corrupted by opportunists to mean having the licence to insult and hurt anyone you like.
And no matter how many world leaders gather in the streets holding hands chanting ‘peace’ there are, it won’t change my opinion on that.
Yes, but freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from response. You want to express an opinion, you need to be prepared for people to express theirs back, and you may find that confrontational or offensive.The right to an opinion is something that should be respected, but the right to have that opinion respected is not.
If someone says something bigoted, calling them bigoted is not shutting down debate. Sure, someone COULD take offense at being called a bigot, or they could question why someone would call them that in response to them expressing their opinion. The same goes with expressing an opinion and being called an idiot, or ignorant, or getting told to go **** yourself - they are responses to the opinion, and the fact is some opinions are so worthless that they don’t deserve more.
On the other hand, someone expressing an opinion and being told to “shutup you’re just a dumb ■■■■■■/terrorist/woman” is very different to that. In that case you aren’t attacking the expression of an opinion, you are attacking the person.
There is no such thing as freedom from offense. Me expressing the opinion that abortion should be legal, marijuana and other drugs should be legal, god does not exist, etc, are all offensive to someone.
If you think someone attacking your expression of opinion is them attacking you, then you clearly overvalue your opinion.
Strawman.
I specifically mentioned ‘assaulting someone emotional and/or mentally’. Not ‘expressing an opinion’. You can hurt someone with an opinion, and there may not be anything wrong with that, if it was needed. What isn’t needed, is intentional assault.
I’ll respond to this argument, but not to something you make up to bring it back to your comfort zone.
First cover since attack:
A reply to: @Deckham regarding QuoteLink
Putting religions aside for a moment, and also laying aside murders and murderers.I am of the opinion that an assault can take many forms. It can be emotional and/or mental just as much as physical. Sometimes, words, or images, can hurt as much as, or more than - a punch in the face.
I’m also of the opinion that an assault against someone is wrong and unfair.
I’m also of the opinion that the term ‘freedom of speech’ which used to mean being allowed to dissent and demonstrate against wrong-doings, has been corrupted by opportunists to mean having the licence to insult and hurt anyone you like.
And no matter how many world leaders gather in the streets holding hands chanting ‘peace’ there are, it won’t change my opinion on that.
The right to an opinion is something that should be respected, but the right to have that opinion respected is not.
If someone says something bigoted, calling them bigoted is not shutting down debate. Sure, someone COULD take offense at being called a bigot, or they could question why someone would call them that in response to them expressing their opinion. The same goes with expressing an opinion and being called an idiot, or ignorant, or getting told to go **** yourself - they are responses to the opinion, and the fact is some opinions are so worthless that they don’t deserve more.
On the other hand, someone expressing an opinion and being told to “shutup you’re just a dumb ■■■■■■/terrorist/woman” is very different to that. In that case you aren’t attacking the expression of an opinion, you are attacking the person.
There is no such thing as freedom from offense. Me expressing the opinion that abortion should be legal, marijuana and other drugs should be legal, god does not exist, etc, are all offensive to someone.
If you think someone attacking your expression of opinion is them attacking you, then you clearly overvalue your opinion.
then you reduce assault to the most ridiculous offence someone can take at , well anything.
Putting religions aside for a moment, and also laying aside murders and murderers.
I am of the opinion that an assault can take many forms. It can be emotional and/or mental just as much as physical. Sometimes, words, or images, can hurt as much as, or more than - a punch in the face.
I’m also of the opinion that an assault against someone is wrong and unfair.
I’m also of the opinion that the term ‘freedom of speech’ which used to mean being allowed to dissent and demonstrate against wrong-doings, has been corrupted by opportunists to mean having the licence to insult and hurt anyone you like.
And no matter how many world leaders gather in the streets holding hands chanting ‘peace’ there are, it won’t change my opinion on that.
@ Rossoneri - No, I can’t either
@ others… Who cares about the artistic/satiric/comical validity of the images? When some brat kid (not mine, mine are perfect*) starts throwing a tantrum wanting a lolly, you don’t give them a lolly just because they kicked you in the shin.
These children are throwing a tanty because they don’t like someone drawing some pictures. I don’t want to walk down the street holding hands. I want to force them to eat their brussels sprouts.
The only reason I WOULDN’T is because of all the Muslims who aren’t throwing a tanty over the cartoons, who would still be offended. Seems a bit hypocritical though that the press are pushing the “moderate muslims aren’t denouncing the attacks” line though if this is the reason they aren’t publishing.