Charlie Hebdo faces 'imminent' attack after publishing front page image of naked Muslims

[Rippleman]

1 hour ago, Skiver said:

it's a select few that are committing these extremist acts of terror.

 

select few tens of MILLIONS....

 

1 hour ago, Skiver said:

I don't walk around calling people fat, ugly or stupid because of my opinions of them, after all freedom of speech says I can. 

Neither does the cartoon. It simply depicts lunacy thinking some people. If a weight doctor was observing an overweight person and said "you need to lose weight" only idiots would take it offense.

 

1 hour ago, Skiver said:

If I went and poked a stick at a bee's nest and I ended up getting stung would you not say well you deserved that? Why, if bee's are generally "peaceful" then my actions should be justified right? I'm free to do what I want without fear of repercussions?

 

 

Are you saying that we are dealing with animal behavior? Are you suggesting mulsims do not have the ability to reason and should control thier actions no matter IF they are poked? (sick man, just sick)

 

1 hour ago, Skiver said:

II'm not saying we should live in fear, absolutely not. I just feel there is a difference between living your life and all it's freedoms and just provoking a group of people for the sake of it and hiding behind things like "freedom of speech" as a justification.

If you DID NOT have the ability to do this because you FEARED the result, guess what? That's called LIVING IN FEAR!

Edited August 15, 2016 by Rippleman

[Skiver Veteran]

1 minute ago, Emn1ty said:

They are criticizing Religion in a satirical manner. Do they not have the right to criticize something for what it is? Does any specific event or reason have to be the cause of said criticism? I believe not. If you believe what they want is a reaction from that community, then you've already set the pretense for how one should object to this type of medium -- don't react to it.

The very definition of satire should explain why they do it.
 

 

It's okay in that it's satire. I feel people have forgotten what satire is and what it's used for. We're going back to the way things used to work here, and deciding that speaking out against things in any manner unprovoked should be stamped out. Welcome to beginning of censorship. Satire is a valid medium to express oneself, and it makes no sense to say one can't express themselves without some arbitrarily valid reason to do so.
 

Just saying it's OK it's satire doesn't really justify it as  ok though, this is the same as when we had that bought of things being "justified" by saying oh I didn't mean to offend it's just a bit of banter. 

 

Aside from that, maybe my understanding of satire is wrong but I believe its point is to make fun of something through exaggeration or irony... I fail to see any of that in this comic in particular.

My reaction is not what I believe this comic is after so how I react to it is not really of any consequence to Charlie Hebdo.

[Rippleman]

19 minutes ago, Fahim S. said:

How does that make it ok? In either case?

Am I missing something here?

 

I am not suggesting that a different set of rules apply to any group, I am saying that a consistent set of rules about respectful and humane behaviour applies to *every* group.

If I say you are offending me with your beard, and you continue to have a beard, would you take my opinion into consideration? Or would you say that is my problem?

 

Point: If something offends a person, it is THEIR own problem to deal with.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

7 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

If I say you are offending me with your beard, and you continue to have a beard, would you take my opinion into consideration? Or would you say that is my problem?

 

Point: If something offends a person, it is THEIR own problem to deal with.

I would take your point into consideration.  But that comment isn't aimed at a group, is it? So not really a good example.

[Rippleman]

Just now, Fahim S. said:

I would take your point into consideration.  But that comment isn't aimed at a group, is it? So not really a good example.

Why would you worry about what I think? Don't. It would be MY problem. 
 

[+Fahim S. MVC]

1 minute ago, Rippleman said:

Why would you worry about what I think? Don't. It would be MY problem. 
 

Because people don't get offended for no reason, and everyone has a duty to at least try to live in harmony with everyone else.

With the very greatest respect, don't tell me what to think.  You don't get to do that.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

 You have to admire the braveness of the CH cartoonists.

 

[Rippleman]

10 minutes ago, Fahim S. said:

Because people don't get offended for no reason

Yes they do, every day. You do NOT have the obligation to cater to my personal belief system. This is where muslims are just plain wrong.

 

quote: "With the very greatest respect, don't tell me what to think.  You don't get to do that."

 

I am OFFENDED that I can't tell you want to think. STOP OFFENDING ME or else!  /s

[+Fahim S. MVC]

1 minute ago, Rippleman said:

Yes they do, every day. You do NOT have the obligation to cater to my persona belief system. This is where muslims are just plain wrong.

Absolutely right, I don't have an obligation, but I do have a compulsion - at least a personal one.  It's what I would call being a productive member of society.

 

No-one gets offended for no reason, lot's of people get offended for reasons we don't understand and therefore what *appears* to be no reason, but they always have a reason.

[T3X4S]

7 minutes ago, Active. said:

 You have to admire the braveness of the CH cartoonists.

 

I admire them more than the people they are supposedly offending.

[Skiver Veteran]

37 minutes ago, Rippleman said:

select few tens of MILLIONS....

 

Neither does the cartoon. It simply depicts lunacy thinking some people. If a weight doctor was observing an overweight person and said "you need to lose weight" only idiots would take it offense.

 

Are you saying that we are dealing with animal behavior? Are you suggesting mulsims do not have the ability to reason and should control thier actions no matter IF they are poked? (sick man, just sick)

 

If you DID NOT have the ability to do this because you FEARED the result, guess what? That's called LIVING IN FEAR!

I don't think anyone will ever truly know the numbers of IS, call me naive if I'm wrong but I don't believe it's in the tens of millions.

I think calling it lunacy is a bit far, I might not agree with many religious views but that doesn't mean I'd call it lunacy. The difference there is that a doctor is in a position of knowledge, I do not view the writers/creators of those cartoons as people who are "knowledgeable" in this area.

 

No I'm not saying that, you're twisting my example based on the saying "stirring up a hornets nest".

 

Having the ability to say something doesn't always mean you should exercise that right. I don't believe making fun of people when you know they are prone to react violently is a clever way to use a voice. I'm not "afraid" to say things that matter, I don't think this matters.

44 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

They are criticizing Religion in a satirical manner. Do they not have the right to criticize something for what it is? Does any specific event or reason have to be the cause of said criticism? I believe not. If you believe what they want is a reaction from that community, then you've already set the pretense for how one should object to this type of medium -- don't react to it.

The very definition of satire should explain why they do it.
 

 

It's okay in that it's satire. I feel people have forgotten what satire is and what it's used for. We're going back to the way things used to work here, and deciding that speaking out against things in any manner unprovoked should be stamped out. Welcome to beginning of censorship. Satire is a valid medium to express oneself, and it makes no sense to say one can't express themselves without some arbitrarily valid reason to do so.
 

Of course they do have that right, I just personally don't see the "funny" side to this comic, it just seems like a bad joke if that is what it is trying to be. I just guess I'm missing a point here.

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

11 minutes ago, Skiver said:

I'm not "afraid" to say things that matter 

Is your life realistically on the line? I mean, have you actually witnessed a number of your colleagues being killed over saying/drawing certain things?

[FloatingFatMan]

3 hours ago, Yazoo said:

I disagree, this is not offending IS, they welcome this as it helps them recruit by justifying their actions.
Why does the magazine need to do this? Freedom of speech does not mean the right to offend in this way.  Its a blatant attempt to entice a reaction like the last one.

Wrong, it means exactly that. Freedom to speak is the freedom to say whatever you want, whether if be offensive or not.  If muslims don't like it, they too have the freedom to say whatever they like in response.

 

What they do NOT have, is the freedom to retaliate with violence.

3 hours ago, Yazoo said:

absolutely it does hence why I think its not a good idea to do this, IMHO this is based on exactly what happened before. I'm literally afraid for them right now.

The minute you restrict your freedom to do something in order to appease those who don't like it, is the minute those people have won.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

South Park and Drawn Together come to mind.

Without ability to make jokes at someone's expense these shows would not exist.

 

Straight from Wikipedia,

Quote

The plots and humor of Drawn Together is adult-oriented and laden with shock comedy. The humor is largely humorously dark and satirical in nature, its primary focus being the mockery of stereotypes and the casual exploration of taboo subject matter, such as masturbation, paraphilia, kinky sex, BDSM, homosexuality or gay marriage, abortion, rape, incest, pedophilia, spousal abuse, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, necrophilia, terrorism, violence and death.

 

[FloatingFatMan]

2 hours ago, LaP said:

If you want to pass a law preventing people from hiding their face in public places then fine. But if the law targets the burkas specifically (and not other way to cover your face like masks) then it's not really fair. You ban all of them or none.

In the UK, it's illegal to enter banks or government buildings wearing anything that covers your face, such as motorcycle helmets or balaclavas), and yet Muslims are allowed to wear their full face coverings.  Why?

2 hours ago, Yazoo said:

Why not print it out and go find the nearest Muslim person and ask them what you are missing, I am sure you will get the answer fairly quickly.

So, are you insinuating that they're all violent nutballs?

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

2 hours ago, Yazoo said:

Why not print it out and go find the nearest Muslim person and ask them what you are missing, I am sure you will get the answer fairly quickly.

Somehow I only know pretty moderate Muslims. I can't imagine them being all that offended by this. Even if they were, I think they'd still be more concerned about the death threats being received by the CH crowd over it. The thing is, I think, that moderate muslims are barely even recognizable as Muslims in daily life (same for Christians, Jews, Scientologists etc. really), so of course when people think of Muslims, in their head they go straight to the extreme fringe.  

[Emn1ty]

1 hour ago, Fahim S. said:

But by that I can say anything offensive I want about any group of people if I position it carefully and make satirical.  That just isn't right to me.

Maybe it's just upbringing, but I was always taught not to offend anyone - whether I agreed with their beliefs and actions, or not.  It's not censorship to me, just good manners.

Yes, good manners. It shouldn't be illegal, or impossible to do. Telling people they can't do that isn't correct. And they shouldn't do it is also relative to the context. The reality is, people can and will and have done this for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet we all still can't seem to understand when something is to be taken seriously and when it isn't.

Sticks and stones, people. You are attacked with words and imagery, fight back with words and imagery. Not violence and murder.

[AnotherITguy]

So, stuff like this as per certain parties within Islam, calls for staff writers to be killed, if we speak out against said atrocities we are all islamophobes. Is it just me, or are double standards in play here?

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, Buttus said:

this is a picture of two naked people at the beach.

 

or are you comparing muslim people's intelligence to insects?

It's not even that. It's a cartoon, a drawing depicting two caricatures. There are no actual people pictures.

 

As for intelligence, I wouldn't call anyone who believes in supernatural nonsense, intelligent, no matter what kind of god they pray to.

[Above The Gods]

So it's not the gangsters with their suicide vest, Gods and al-Qurʾān who are the problem here. It's the people standing up to the gangsters which are? The fact that there are people who are willing to kill others because they're being made fun of in a newpaper is troubling. These people are clearly uncivilized and aren't worth defending. What's even more troubling is that they are people willing to sacrifice freedom of speech to appease these murderers.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Above The Gods

[FloatingFatMan]

52 minutes ago, Skiver said:

I don't think anyone will ever truly know the numbers of IS, call me naive if I'm wrong but I don't believe it's in the tens of millions.

IS are not the only islamic terrorists in the world, you know. They're just one particular gang of them, and only the newest.  You're forgetting all their buddies like Al Queda, The Taliban, Boko Haram and the hundreds of other groups all intent of slaughtering anyone who doesn't do fit their twisted view of the universe.

54 minutes ago, Skiver said:

I think calling it lunacy is a bit far, I might not agree with many religious views but that doesn't mean I'd call it lunacy. The difference there is that a doctor is in a position of knowledge, I do not view the writers/creators of those cartoons as people who are "knowledgeable" in this area.

If your dad started talking to someone who wasn't there, and telling you this invisible someone was telling him to do things that he wouldn't normally do, would you accept that happily, or call a doctor?

 

I'm betting the doctor, personally.

[Anonymous3]

21 minutes ago, FloatingFatMan said:

As for intelligence, I wouldn't call anyone who believes in supernatural nonsense, intelligent, no matter what kind of god they pray to.

 

Sadly, that says a whole lot more about your intelligence level than I'm betting you'd like it to. You wouldn't call Ben Carson intelligent? Isaac Newton? That's a special level of stupid. I think that it's ridiculous to believe in evolution. But I don't call people who do "unintelligent"; some of them are very intelligent. We just disagree.

 

Anyway, don't bother replying. Or do. I don't care. You're going on the ignore list... I don't have time to read such ridiculously biased and baseless comments.

[LaP]

1 hour ago, FloatingFatMan said:

In the UK, it's illegal to enter banks or government buildings wearing anything that covers your face, such as motorcycle helmets or balaclavas), and yet Muslims are allowed to wear their full face coverings.  Why?

S

Well i'm not living in UK so dunno why Should not though. IMO for security reason you should not be allowed to cover your face in public place unless you're outside and it's minus 30 or it's Halloween or something like that.

[FloatingFatMan]

1 hour ago, mip said:

Anyway, don't bother replying. Or do. I don't care. You're going on the ignore list

Score! \o/

 

Fastest way to lose an argument it to stick your head in the sand, buddy, so well done there.

Edited August 15, 2016 by FloatingFatMan

[Clirion]

I look at CH the same way I look at Court Jesters, (Including the Middle East).  They sit on the outside of the social structure and get to say whatever is on their mind.  No retribution came to them.

The mish mash of the population criticize a King, Czar, Ruler, Emperor, "Off with their Head". The Jester. meanwhile, can proceed to make fun of that very event.

This was their job, and the satirist in the modern world fulfils that role.