Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
To be fair all religion is, but Islam is one of the weirdest
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
it all seems too much 'us against them' to me, marching in solidarity for our 'right' to publish whatever offensive and bigoted material we want, just because we can.
"Us against them" as in "we, that believe shooting something over a drawing is slightly disproportionate, against them, that shoot people over drawings"?
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
The freedom to mock any religion idea would be fine if Charlie Hebdo hadn't specifically targeted Islam for the majority of their stuff.
Wait, what? You're all for freedom of speech as long as it's used to evenly distribute satire across every known group?
If you think there's not being made enough fun of the jewish and hindus, go make fun of them.
If you think Charlie Hebdo is making too much fun of certain groups, pick up a different magazine.
Your notion of freedom of speech is ironically warped if you think it's something that can only be used for good or in a certain way that you deem appropriate.
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
This is what I mean when I say a lot of Muslims, have an element of western dislike built into them. Deffo a level of brainwashing goes on at home imo.
I've seen elements of it from even the placid open minded ones, ok nothing like I'm gonna bomb something, but little comments I see posted between themselves on facebook etc that leads to this element of dislike on some level.
Here we have moestavern actually blaming anything other than Islam for the tensions caused.
[Edited on 13-01-2015 by Steve]
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
it all seems too much 'us against them' to me, marching in solidarity for our 'right' to publish whatever offensive and bigoted material we want, just because we can.
"Us against them" as in "we, that believe shooting something over a drawing is slightly disproportionate, against them, that shoot people over drawings"? quote:
Us against them as in "If you're not with us you're against us" which is very limiting. You can be against the murders while still finding Charlie Hebdo distasteful.
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
The freedom to mock any religion idea would be fine if Charlie Hebdo hadn't specifically targeted Islam for the majority of their stuff.
Wait, what? You're all for freedom of speech as long as it's used to evenly distribute satire across every known group?
If you think there's not being made enough fun of the jewish and hindus, go make fun of them.
If you think Charlie Hebdo is making too much fun of certain groups, pick up a different magazine.
Your notion of freedom of speech is ironically warped if you think it's something that can only be used for good or in a certain way that you deem appropriate.
Eh? I'm saying that Charlie Hebdo weren't defenders of free expression, they spent their time making fun of France's Muslim minority. That's not freedom to mock any religion, that's intentional persecution.
The fact that they've been killed for it doesn't make them worth championing, it's an uncomfortable thing to hold up as a symbol of press freedom.
[Edited on 13-01-2015 by MoesTavern]
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
This is what I mean when I say a lot of Muslims, have an element of western dislike built into them. Deffo a level of brainwashing goes on at home imo.
I've seen elements of it from even the placid open minded ones, ok nothing like I'm gonna bomb something, but little comments I see posted between themselves on facebook etc that leads to this element of dislike on some level.
Here we have moestavern actually blaming anything other than Islam for the tensions caused.
I could be wrong, Steve but I think it's more complex than figuring out who to blame. Tarring all Muslims with the same brush is a little simplistic, no?
[Edited on 13-01-2015 by MoesTavern]
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
You can be against the murders while still finding Charlie Hebdo distasteful.
I don't think anyone has ever said or indicated that this wasn't the case. Seems you're mistaking defending Charlie Hebdo's right to write or draw whatever they like for agreeing with everything they've ever said or done.
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
That's not freedom to mock any religion, that's intentional persecution.
And the two are mutually exclusive?
What you said was:
"The freedom to mock any religion idea would be fine if Charlie Hebdo hadn't specifically targeted Islam for the majority of their stuff."
So you're saying they should have been censored?
Again, I don't think you understand what free speech is or what this whole thing is about.
Your focus on what Charlie Hebdo have put in their magazine in the past is more or less completely irrelevant to this whole story.
The fact is they were killed for making funny cartoons.
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
You can be against the murders while still finding Charlie Hebdo distasteful.
I don't think anyone has ever said or indicated that this wasn't the case. Seems you're mistaking defending Charlie Hebdo's right to write or draw whatever they like for agreeing with everything they've ever said or done.
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
That's not freedom to mock any religion, that's intentional persecution.
And the two are mutually exclusive?
What you said was:
"The freedom to mock any religion idea would be fine if Charlie Hebdo hadn't specifically targeted Islam for the majority of their stuff."
So you're saying they should have been censored?
Again, I don't think you understand what free speech is or what this whole thing is about.
Your focus on what Charlie Hebdo have put in their magazine in the past is more or less completely irrelevant to this whole story.
The fact is they were killed for making funny cartoons.
Not at all, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to express themselves without being murdered. But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the consequences of it. The outpouring of grief over their murders does not make their previous output "irrelevant"
They were killed for making cartoons that were offensive, racist and bigoted (Also frequently sexist and homophobic). The fact that you don't personally find them offensive is by the by, surely?
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
Not at all, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to express themselves without being murdered. But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the consequences of it.
Actually that's exactly what it means. 
Freedom to say what you will, without getting killed for it. How would it be "freedom" otherwise?
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
They were killed for making cartoons that were offensive, racist and bigoted (Also frequently sexist and homophobic).
So it's okay then? No big deal? Should have seen it coming? Nothing to worry about?
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
Not at all, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to express themselves without being murdered. But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the consequences of it.
Actually that's exactly what it means.
Freedom to say what you will, without getting killed for it. How would it be "freedom" otherwise?
I think it's relevant and important to discuss the consequences and responsibilities that comes with it. Don't you? Would you treat freedom of speech as an untouchable right beyond all others, such as the right not to be discriminated against or insulted?
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
They were killed for making cartoons that were offensive, racist and bigoted (Also frequently sexist and homophobic).
So it's okay then? No big deal? Should have seen it coming? Nothing to worry about?
Yeah because that's exactly what I said isn't it? 
|
Steve
Premium Member
Registered: 30th Mar 02
Location: Worcestershire Drives: Defender
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
You can be against the murders while still finding Charlie Hebdo distasteful.
I don't think anyone has ever said or indicated that this wasn't the case. Seems you're mistaking defending Charlie Hebdo's right to write or draw whatever they like for agreeing with everything they've ever said or done.
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
That's not freedom to mock any religion, that's intentional persecution.
And the two are mutually exclusive?
What you said was:
"The freedom to mock any religion idea would be fine if Charlie Hebdo hadn't specifically targeted Islam for the majority of their stuff."
So you're saying they should have been censored?
Again, I don't think you understand what free speech is or what this whole thing is about.
Your focus on what Charlie Hebdo have put in their magazine in the past is more or less completely irrelevant to this whole story.
The fact is they were killed for making funny cartoons.
Not at all, the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to express themselves without being murdered. But freedom of expression does not mean freedom from the consequences of it. The outpouring of grief over their murders does not make their previous output "irrelevant"
They were killed for making cartoons that were offensive, racist and bigoted (Also frequently sexist and homophobic). The fact that you don't personally find them offensive is by the by, surely?
At the end of the day you are free to believe what you will, however why not spend more time thinking about why what you believe in is actually a load of made up bullshit, no better than believing in father Christmas.
|
Gary
Premium Member
Registered: 22nd Nov 06
Location: West Yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
The word 'offensive' needs banning. It shouldn't be a thing.
I belive you can only be offended, but never offensive as been offended is dependant on the person.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
I think it's relevant and important to discuss the consequences and responsibilities that comes with it. Don't you? Would you treat freedom of speech as an untouchable right beyond all others, such as the right not to be discriminated against or insulted?
You do have the right to not be insulted. Whether you exercise that right is up to you.
I'm not aware that Charlie Hebdo have discriminated anyone. If they have, it's unrelated to this incident, as far as I can tell. It's also not something that warrants the death penalty.
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
Yeah because that's exactly what I said isn't it?
It certainly appears that way when you have an issue with people opposing the killing of 12 people because they made funny pictures for a living.
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
I think it's relevant and important to discuss the consequences and responsibilities that comes with it. Don't you? Would you treat freedom of speech as an untouchable right beyond all others, such as the right not to be discriminated against or insulted?
You do have the right to not be insulted. Whether you exercise that right is up to you.
I'm not aware that Charlie Hebdo have discriminated anyone. If they have, it's unrelated to this incident, as far as I can tell. It's also not something that warrants the death penalty.quote:
You're not aware that Charlie Hebdo have discriminated against Muslims? How could that possibly be "unrelated to this incident"
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
Yeah because that's exactly what I said isn't it?
It certainly appears that way when you have an issue with people opposing the killing of 12 people because they made funny pictures for a living.
My issue is not with people opposing the killings, it's with the lack of acknowledgement and discussion of the possible reasons behind them.
|
Balling
Premium Member
Registered: 7th Apr 04
Location: Denmark
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
You're not aware that Charlie Hebdo have discriminated against Muslims? How could that possibly be "unrelated to this incident"
No, I'm not aware of that.
It's unrelated to this incident since it was brought on by satirical drawings. By definition, a drawing can't be discriminating. I don't think the word means what you think it means.
Now if they'd refused to give somebody a job based on them belonging to a specific race/group/religion then that would be an example of discrimination. That's not what brought all this on, though. Hence it would be unrelated.
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
My issue is not with people opposing the killings, it's with the lack of acknowledgement and discussion of the possible reasons behind them.
The reasons behind the killings is that a very minor group is being brainwashed to take their religion way to seriously. As a result, they think they can bully other people to follow their medieval rules by killing and threatening those they don't agree with.
This has been acknowledged and discussed extensively.
[Edited on 14-01-2015 by Balling]
|
baza31
Member
Registered: 19th Apr 03
Location: yorkshire
User status: Offline
|
MoesTavern ur talking a load of bollocks n sounding like a brainwashed Wally yourself
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balling
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
You're not aware that Charlie Hebdo have discriminated against Muslims? How could that possibly be "unrelated to this incident"
No, I'm not aware of that.
It's unrelated to this incident since it was brought on by satirical drawings. By definition, a drawing can't be discriminating. I don't think the word means what you think it means.
Now if they'd refused to give somebody a job based on them belonging to a specific race/group/religion then that would be an example of discrimination. That's not what brought all this on, though. Hence it would be unrelated.quote:
Discrimination in the sense it appears that Muslims are being specifically targeted, to the exclusion of other minorities. I'm not aware that this is an incorrect usage of the term?
quote:
Originally posted by MoesTavern
My issue is not with people opposing the killings, it's with the lack of acknowledgement and discussion of the possible reasons behind them.
The reasons behind the killings is that a very minor group is being brainwashed to take their religion way to seriously. As a result, they think they can bully other people to follow their medieval rules by killing and threatening those they don't agree with.
This has been acknowledged and discussed extensively.
[Edited on 14-01-2015 by Balling]
I think that Charlie Hebdo setting out to provoke an already disaffected and marginalized minority under the guise of free speech could be more of a talking point, that's all.
Also, you keep referring to their output as "funny pictures" as if being offended by them is something to be ridiculed. Isn't that rather narrow minded and dismissive of you? Who are you to say what's offensive, and to whom?
[Edited on 14-01-2015 by MoesTavern]
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by baza31
MoesTavern ur talking a load of bollocks n sounding like a brainwashed Wally yourself
I love you baza, I hope you know that.
|
MoesTavern
Member
Registered: 19th Jul 07
User status: Offline
|
Thoughts on this, Balling?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/14/dieudonne-trial-charlie-hebdo_n_6472480.html
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
My thoughts on that is that it is a horribly written article.
I assume that's the chap who Nicolas Anelka "supported" and was accused of being anti-Semitic as well?.
What did he actually do, seeing as the article doesn't seem to mention it, or it's to bitty that i've not found it
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Also, if you're looking to the huffingtonpost for backup then you're probably losing the arguement, it's a shocking website
[Edited on 14-01-2015 by Cavey]
|
Twiggy
Member
Registered: 15th Oct 04
User status: Offline
|
In other news! Local Tesco!
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/mold-tesco-attack-man-held-8449310
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Was there a Blaupunkt TV on sale?!
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
angry, white and proud currently on channel 4. Absolutely insane 
|
JonnyJ
Member
Registered: 23rd Sep 05
Location: Scotchland
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben G
angry, white and proud currently on channel 4. Absolutely insane
Its like CS, but in real life
|
Ben G
Member
Registered: 12th Jan 07
Location: Essex
User status: Offline
|
Yeah. I'm quite shocked tbh. I've seen a few blokes like this around but not the violence.
They're sons/grandsons of immigrants Aswell. Hypcritical idiots.
|
