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

[Yazoo]

6 minutes ago, Buttus said:

everyone is saying that the picture is offensive.    what am i missing?

 

it's two naked people at the beach?

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.

[+Red King Subscriber²]

1 minute ago, LaP said:

To be fair where's the freedom into banning burkas from beaches?

 

Yes wearing a burka at the beach is stupid but in a free society people should be free to be stupid (as long as it doesn't harm other people).

 

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.

1. Encourage integration
2. Discourage Sexism

It really depends whether you value a nations culture, values, and law over religious freedom

 

That is my $ 0.02 anyway

[game_over]

Whether it's offensive or not (it isn't) it's just distasteful, with everything that the country is going through and has happened them, it's unnecessary.

[restroom]

This is a stupid thing to doin the current climate and should warrant outrage against religious persecution from Muslims and non Muslims alike. That's how freedom of speech works. They are free to speak about sensitive subjects in their own right, if they cross that line then legal avenues can be taken.

 

What ISNT freedom of speech, but will most likely happen, is Muslims taking this as an opportunity to go on a killing spree for offending their religion.

 

Much like BLM. I do sympathize with their cause and persecution. I don't sympathize with the way they go about fighting for their rights by killing people and causing mass panic and disorder. It goes against freedom of speech generally.

 

In short, wrong for drawing the picture, but just as wrong is the response this will most likely warrant.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

17 minutes ago, Buttus said:

everyone is saying that the picture is offensive.    what am i missing?

 

it's two naked people at the beach?

How dare a women be on a beach unless she is clad head to toe in knights armour. Maybe a slit for eyes is okay. Maybe.

 

That perverting flesh. 

[Skiver Veteran]

24 minutes ago, J. X. Maxwell said:

Islam is not a race therefore criticizing it can't lead to "racial hatred"

 

Their staff probably have balls and value freedom over Islamic oppression.

 

Funny I get offended by comics insulting Trump supporters, articles insulting gamers, and so on - but I never sent death threats about it.

Are people afraid of calling Catholic priests pederasts? Are people afraid of calling Atheists immoral?

 

If the majority of European Islamists are peaceful, people wouldn't fear making fun of them.

They actual do need to "loosen up"

IMO you are looking at this completely wrongly.  You make it sound like any follower of Islam is oppressing our own freedoms, it's not, it's a select few that are committing these extremist acts of terror. Actively trying to offend an entire group because of the extreme few is not a justification. 

People seem to think that Freedom of speech means you also have the right to exercise it at all costs. This is not the case and common sense should be used. 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. 

 

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?

 

I'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.

 

 

[restroom]

16 minutes ago, Skiver said:

IMO you are looking at this completely wrongly.  You make it sound like any follower of Islam is oppressing our own freedoms, it's not, it's a select few that are committing these extremist acts of terror. Actively trying to offend an entire group because of the extreme few is not a justification. 

Not all Germans where Nazis. Same kind of scenario. Look how that ended. Take in to account the sheer number of Muslims in the world and percentage of extremist elements within them... this is far worse than the Nazis. Again, I'm not saying by any means that all Muslims are bad people, but just that the numbers are higher as the general population of Muslims is greater than that of the Germans\Nazis in general.

 

16 minutes ago, Skiver said:

People seem to think that Freedom of speech means you also have the right to exercise it at all costs. This is not the case and common sense should be used. 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. 

Absolutely. This is what I meant by the fact that legal ramifications should come from printing such a thing, however the outcome will be far more severe than the printing of that picture in general, thus pushing freedom of speech even further out of the window.

16 minutes 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?

Well kind of. But then bees are not human. Humans are expected to play by the laws of the land. that seems to be something a lot of extremist Muslims struggle with. Freedom of speech generally means we should be free to express ourselves in a way that we feel correct without fear of repercussions. However that's not to say that legal ramifications should not be the interpretation of your bee example. However in this case the bee sting is likely to be something far worse than the arrest or court case of the paper in question.

16 minutes ago, Skiver said:

 

I'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.

 

 

I agree with what you're saying, but not agreeing with the ramifications of one bad act deserving a far worse response. There is no excuse EVER for taking someone else's life.

[Emn1ty]

27 minutes ago, Skiver said:

IMO you are looking at this completely wrongly.  You make it sound like any follower of Islam is oppressing our own freedoms, it's not, it's a select few that are committing these extremist acts of terror. Actively trying to offend an entire group because of the extreme few is not a justification. 

People seem to think that Freedom of speech means you also have the right to exercise it at all costs. This is not the case and common sense should be used. 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. 

 

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?

 

I'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.

 

 

While I agree with 90% of what you say, you also have to understand that just because you call someone fat, ugly or stupid (or created a political/cultural cartoon relevant to current events) that those who are offended do not have any right to respond with violence. They can respond with their own freedom of speech in-kind.

People want to shoot the messenger here, when it's not the messenger at fault. It's the one who responds to the message by killing the messenger and all of his associates. Yes, don't go around needlessly offending people if you don't have to. But you shouldn't have to expect a violent outburst for every negative thing you say.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

10 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Yes, don't go around needlessly offending people if you don't have to.

So the real question here is whether there was any need to offend a group of people in the way they are clearly aiming to?

 

If not, then why as a society do/should we accept this if we are as civilised as we all claim to be?  Or is it that we are only civilised when it suits our own interests?

 

It's just sad.  It's sad no matter the community it is aimed at, whether this is of a religious, cultural, or sexual persuasion.

[restroom]

12 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

While I agree with 90% of what you say, you also have to understand that just because you call someone fat, ugly or stupid (or created a political/cultural cartoon relevant to current events) that those who are offended do not have any right to respond with violence. They can respond with their own freedom of speech in-kind.

People want to shoot the messenger here, when it's not the messenger at fault. It's the one who responds to the message by killing the messenger and all of his associates. Yes, don't go around needlessly offending people if you don't have to. But you shouldn't have to expect a violent outburst for every negative thing you say.

This is what I was trying to say, but he put it better I think :).

[Emn1ty]

1 minute ago, Fahim S. said:

So the real question here is whether there was any need to offend a group of people in the way they are clearly aiming to?

 

If it is the latter, then why as a society do/should we accept this if we are as civilised as we all claim to be?  Or is it that we are only civilised when we it suits our own interests?

 

It's just sad.  It's sad no matter the community it is aimed at, whether this is of a religious, cultural, or sexual persuasion.

Satire has its place in the world. If we're going to step down this road, then we may as well ban SNL skits and every other parody or satire of political figures, racial or ethnic groups and religious groups. Why is it so wrong to make satire? People need to learn to be able to laugh at themselves.

To think that today we can't even take satire for what it is, and must treat it as hate speech instead to make ourselves feel as if we aren't morally or ethically bankrupt.

[Skiver Veteran]

13 minutes ago, restroom said:

Not all Germans where Nazis. Same kind of scenario. Look how that ended. Take in to account the sheer number of Muslims in the world and percentage of extremist elements within them... this is far worse than the Nazis. Again, I'm not saying by any means that all Muslims are bad people, but just that the numbers are higher as the general population of Muslims is greater than that of the Germans\Nazis in general.

 

Absolutely. This is what I meant by the fact that legal ramifications should come from printing such a thing, however the outcome will be far more severe than the printing of that picture in general, thus pushing freedom of speech even further out of the window.

Well kind of. But then bees are not human. Humans are expected to play by the laws of the land. that seems to be something a lot of extremist Muslims struggle with. Freedom of speech generally means we should be free to express ourselves in a way that we feel correct without fear of repercussions. However that's not to say that legal ramifications should not be the interpretation of your bee example. However in this case the bee sting is likely to be something far worse than the arrest or court case of the paper in question.

I agree with what you're saying, but not agreeing with the ramifications of one bad act deserving a far worse response. There is no excuse EVER for taking someone else's life.

True, but at the same time the Nazi Party was the Governing body of the country at the time, and at that time if you didn't do as you were told then you faced the same fate as the victims. I don't think that is directly comparable here, there isn't the same level of authority sitting over all Muslims to cause recruitment to the same level the Nazi party did.

 

Absolutely I agree, I'm not saying the actions of Charlie Hebdo deserve any past of future actions taken against them. However we should learn from the past and in the past we have learnt that when provoked the group known as IS can and do respond in horrible horrible ways so why take that risk.

8 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

While I agree with 90% of what you say, you also have to understand that just because you call someone fat, ugly or stupid (or created a political/cultural cartoon relevant to current events) that those who are offended do not have any right to respond with violence. They can respond with their own freedom of speech in-kind.

People want to shoot the messenger here, when it's not the messenger at fault. It's the one who responds to the message by killing the messenger and all of his associates. Yes, don't go around needlessly offending people if you don't have to. But you shouldn't have to expect a violent outburst for every negative thing you say.

However in this case the messenger doesn't even have a good message to relay, it's pointless and has one aim and the aim is not positive. If you want to speak out that you aren't afraid then that's fine, but IMO this is just provocation for provocations sake.

[restroom]

4 minutes ago, Fahim S. said:

So the real question here is whether there was any need to offend a group of people in the way they are clearly aiming to?

 

If not, then why as a society do/should we accept this if we are as civilised as we all claim to be?  Or is it that we are only civilised when it suits our own interests?

 

It's just sad.  It's sad no matter the community it is aimed at, whether this is of a religious, cultural, or sexual persuasion.

I'm not sure you followed his point. He's not condoning this, he's just saying that there should be a reasonable and legal response. It wasn't needed and should be met with protests of sorts and legal avenues should be explored. What isn't a reasonable response is to kill their staff or anyone else over the matter.

[restroom]

2 minutes ago, Skiver said:

True, but at the same time the Nazi Party was the Governing body of the country at the time, and at that time if you didn't do as you were told then you faced the same fate as the victims. I don't think that is directly comparable here, there isn't the same level of authority sitting over all Muslims to cause recruitment to the same level the Nazi party did.

I would disagree. I believe there is a lot of control over Muslims by the more extreme elements within their own society. Look at honor killings for example.

 

2 minutes ago, Skiver said:

Absolutely I agree, I'm not saying the actions of Charlie Hebdo deserve any past of future actions taken against them. However we should learn from the past and in the past we have learnt that when provoked the group known as IS can and do respond in horrible horrible ways so why take that risk.

However in this case the messenger doesn't even have a good message to relay, it's pointless and has one aim and the aim is not positive. If you want to speak out that you aren't afraid then that's fine, but IMO this is just provocation for provocations sake.

But some people don't learn. That's human nature and will continue to be. They will post these pictures and the outcome will eventually lead to terrorism. Neither they nor the extreme end of Islam will have learnt a single thing.

 

The one thing that WOULD have made them stop this is finance. Take a hit to their pocket and they would likely not be doing it again. Money makes the world go round after all!

[Emn1ty]

Just now, Skiver said:

However in this case the messenger doesn't even have a good message to relay, it's pointless and has one aim and the aim is not positive. If you want to speak out that you aren't afraid then that's fine, but IMO this is just provocation for provocations sake.

It's actually something they do all the time. They've featured other religious groups as well with their satire such as Christianity



People are cherry picking here. They are a weekly magazine that makes comics about the current issues and they take a stab at anyone and anything. But they are satire. You cannot blame them for other people not understanding that and then deciding to shoot them up because of it.

To say they are doing it for "no reason" is like saying McDonalds serves food for "no reason" or CNN reports the news for "no reason". Of course they don't have to do those things, but they do. That's what they do, and who they are.

[Rippleman]

2 hours ago, Yazoo said:

What is wrong with them? 

The world needs EVERY publisher to PRINT these kinds of photos day in and day out to get it through to muslims to show them THEIR mythology does NOT apply to anyone but themselves.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Rippleman

[Rippleman]

1 hour ago, Mando said:

nonsense, its called incitement to racial hatred,

race? Islam is a belief in the supernatural, has nothing to do with race.

[Skiver Veteran]

2 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

It's actually something they do all the time. They've featured other religious groups as well with their satire such as Christianity



People are cherry picking here. They are a weekly magazine that makes comics about the current issues and they take a stab at anyone and anything. But they are satire. You cannot blame them for other people not understanding that and then deciding to shoot them up because of it.

To say they are doing it for "no reason" is like saying McDonalds serves food for "no reason" or CNN reports the news for "no reason". Of course they don't have to do those things, but they do. That's what they do, and who they are.

I don't understand the "issue" here that they are taking a stab at? Maybe it's french sense of humour, maybe I have a terrible sense of humour but I just don't get the message or the reason behind this comic in particular other than someone deliberately going for a reaction (and not a good one). I don't understand the ones posted above also but I'll assume that if I could read french then perhaps I might?

 

IMO it's kinda like having a joke with friends and saying things that would normally offend someone but because their your mates they find it funny and laugh along. Then taking those jokes and walking up to a guy with a short temper and trying the same, what was funny with your mates isn't funny with this guy so what was the point?

 

 

[+Fahim S. MVC]

7 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

It's actually something they do all the time. They've featured other religious groups as well with their satire such as Christianity

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.

[Buttus]

1 hour 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 you don't know either?

[+Fahim S. MVC]

15 minutes ago, restroom said:

I'm not sure you followed his point. He's not condoning this, he's just saying that there should be a reasonable and legal response. It wasn't needed and should be met with protests of sorts and legal avenues should be explored. What isn't a reasonable response is to kill their staff or anyone else over the matter.

I understood what was being said.  There is absolutely no reason for violence to be used, and the threat of violence should not change behaviour.  But the behaviour is poor nevertheless, because to encourage it just sends you down a very slippery slope.

[Mockingbird]

Why don't they just stick their hands into honest's nests and see if anything bad happens?

[Buttus]

2 minutes ago, illegaloperation said:

Why don't they just stick their hands into honest's nests and see if anything bad happens?

slightly different.   that's hornets trying to protect their nest, plus they're animals, insects, that have no other intelligence.

 

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

 

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

[Emn1ty]

3 minutes ago, Skiver said:

I don't understand the "issue" here that they are taking a stab at? Maybe it's french sense of humour, maybe I have a terrible sense of humour but I just don't get the message or the reason behind this comic in particular other than someone deliberately going for a reaction (and not a good one). I don't understand the ones posted above also but I'll assume that if I could read french then perhaps I might?

 

IMO it's kinda like having a joke with friends and saying things that would normally offend someone but because their your mates they find it funny and laugh along. Then taking those jokes and walking up to a guy with a short temper and trying the same, what was funny with your mates isn't funny with this guy so what was the point?

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.
 

Quote

the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

 

7 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.

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.
 

[+Fahim S. MVC]

4 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

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.

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.