|
|
Gunmen storm office of satirical magazine in Paris
By charlo999 2015-01-20 13:56:31
Can I just say blazed. The 'just deal with it' reference was directed at brushing off the goading and mocking pictures towards the faiths, as bullying morons, which shouldn't even be given the time of day. Not the horrendous acts of violence. Unless I've read your post wrong.
The difference with mocking religion compared to politics is, politics can have a right or wrong side that can be mocked if proven wrong.
Religion can not be proven right or wrong. So mockery of religion is only based on a persons opinion of it.
Also this (my post)was my opinion across the board in regards to all religions, not just extremists.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to
Stop trying to confuse.
I never made thus claim. Quote me please.
Respect, and treating others how you'd like to be treated isn't appeasement.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-20 13:58:09
Do you mean urinating or insulting?
Really the one it depends on how you go about doing it (as urinating in public is illegal), but just the act in of itself,
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 13:59:58
Freedom of expression and speech = freedom to insult. ftfy
for the record it also means the freedom to be insulted.
Offense is subjective, to try to limit speech because somebody may be offended at the very least is asinine.
What is the punishment for pissing on the American flag where you come from? Nothing
It is considered free speech to burn the flag or desecrate it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
Quote: (a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
What is the punishment for questioning the Holocaust in France, Kara?
 Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-20 14:03:31
Freedom of expression and speech = freedom to insult. ftfy
for the record it also means the freedom to be insulted.
Offense is subjective, to try to limit speech because somebody may be offended at the very least is asinine.
What is the punishment for pissing on the American flag where you come from? Nothing
It is considered free speech to burn the flag or desecrate it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
Quote: (a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
What is the punishment for questioning the Holocaust in France, Kara?
Dude that is an old and outdated law. Supreme court rulings > unconstitional law
Quote: Criminal penalties for certain acts of desecration to the flag were contained in Title 18 of the United States Code prior to 1989. The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson; June 21, 1989, held the statute unconstitutional. This statute was amended when the Flag Protection Act of 1989 (Oct. 28, 1989) imposed a fine and/or up to I year in prison for knowingly mutilating, defacing, physically defiling, maintaining on the floor or trampling upon any flag of the United States. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was struck down by the Supreme Court decision, United States vs. Eichman, decided on June 11, 1990.
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 14:03:39
Freedom of expression and speech = freedom to insult. ftfy
for the record it also means the freedom to be insulted.
Offense is subjective, to try to limit speech because somebody may be offended at the very least is asinine.
What is the punishment for pissing on the American flag where you come from? Nothing
It is considered free speech to burn the flag or desecrate it.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration#United_States18 U.S. Code § 700 - Desecration of the flag of the United States; penalties
Quote: (a)
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.
(b) As used in this section, the term “flag of the United States” means any flag of the United States, or any part thereof, made of any substance, of any size, in a form that is commonly displayed.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of Congress to deprive any State, territory, possession, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of jurisdiction over any offense over which it would have jurisdiction in the absence of this section.
(d)
(1) An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order issued by a United States district court ruling upon the constitutionality of subsection (a).
(2) The Supreme Court shall, if it has not previously ruled on the question, accept jurisdiction over the appeal and advance on the docket and expedite to the greatest extent possible.
What is the punishment for questioning the Holocaust in France, Kara? Reacting to protests during the Vietnam War era, the United States 90th Congress enacted Public Law 90-381 (82 Stat. 291), later codified as 18 U.S.C. 700, et. seq., and better known as the Flag Protection Act of 1968. It was an expansion to nationwide applicability of a 1947 law previously restricted only to the District of Columbia (See 61 Stat. 642).
In 1989, the 101st Congress amended that statute with Public Law 101-131 (103 Stat. 777). These amendments to the statute were in response to the United States Supreme Court's ruling that year in the case of Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397). On 1990-06-11 the Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Eichman struck down the Flag Protection Act, ruling again that the government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol does not outweigh the individual's First Amendment right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-20 14:05:07
1st amendment > title 18.
Just an fyi, since you apparently don't comprehend how it works.
By question do you mean deny? if so, then you're just a *** moron.
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 14:06:30
Can I just say blazed. The 'just deal with it' reference was directed at brushing off the goading and mocking pictures towards the faiths, as bullying morons, which shouldn't even be given the time of day. Not the horrendous acts of violence. Unless I've read your post wrong.
The difference with mocking religion compared to politics is, politics can have a right or wrong side that can be mocked if proven wrong.
Religion can not be proven right or wrong. So mockery of religion is only based on a persons opinion of it.
Also this (my post)was my opinion across the board in regards to all religions, not just extremists.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to
Stop trying to confuse.
I never made thus claim. Quote me please.
Respect, and treating others how you'd like to be treated isn't appeasement.Not performing an action because it would cause someone to threaten to or try to kill you is appeasement.
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 14:09:23
Quote: Austria[edit]
In Austria flag desecration is illegal under §248 Strafgesetzbuch.[12] Offenders can be fined or punished with up to 6 months of imprisonment. Under §317 Strafgesetzbuch desecration of flags of foreign states or international organizations can be punished if Austria maintains diplomatic relations with them or belongs to the respective organization.[13] Keina Farrington and Alex Mendoza were famously arrested in Austria for defacing the country's flag.
Are you Danish?
Quote: Denmark[edit]
In Denmark, it is illegal to desecrate the flags of foreign countries but legal to burn the Dannebrog, Denmark's national flag, according to section 110(e) of the Danish penal code[22] because Parliament had decided that burning other countries' flags was a matter of foreign policy, as it could be construed as a threat. Quote: Finland[edit]
According to the Finnish flag law[1] it is illegal to desecrate the flag, treat it in disrespecting manner or remove it from a public place without permission. Quote: France[edit]
According to French law,[26] outraging the French national anthem or the French flag during an event organized or regulated by public authorities is liable for a fine of €7,500 (and six months' imprisonment if performed in a gathering). The law targets outrageous behaviour during public ceremonies and major sports events.
This clause was added as an amendment to a large bill dealing with internal security, in reaction to a football match during which there had been whistles against La Marseillaise, but also to similar actions during public ceremonies.[27] The amendment initially prohibiting such outrage regardless of the context, but a parliamentary commission later restricted its scope to events organized or regulated by public authorities,[28] — which is to be understood, according to the ruling of the Constitutional Council as events organized by public authorities, mass sport matches and other mass events taking place in enclosures, but not private speech, literary or artistic works, or speech during events not organized or regulated by public authorities.[29]
In 2006, a man who had publicly burnt a French flag stolen from the façade of the city hall of Aurillac during a public festival, organized and regulated by public authorities, was sentenced to a €300 fine.[30]
A July 2010 law makes it a crime to desecrate the French national flag in a public place, but also to distribute images of a flag desecration, even when done in a private setting.[31] On 22 December 2010, an Algerian national was the first person to be convicted under the new status, and ordered to pay a €750 after breaking the pole of a flag hung in the Alpes-Maritimes prefecture a day prior.[32] Quote: Under German criminal code (§90a Strafgesetzbuch (StGB)) it is illegal to revile or damage the German federal flag as well as any flags of its states in public. Offenders can be fined or sentenced for a maximum of three years in prison. Offenders can be fined or sentenced for a maximum of five years in prison if the act was intentionally used to support the eradication of the Federal Republic of Germany or to violate constitutional rights. Actual convictions because of a violation of the criminal code need to be balanced against the constitutional right of the freedom of expressions, as ruled multiple times by Germany's constitutional court.[citation needed]
As for flags of foreign countries, it is illegal to damage or revile them, if they are shown publicly by tradition, event or routinely by representatives of the foreign entity (§104 StGB). On the other hand it is not illegal to desecrate such flags that serve no official purpose (especially including any the one willing to desecrate them brings by himself for that purpose).
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 14:13:23
Are you Danish?
Quote: Denmark[edit]
In Denmark, it is illegal to desecrate the flags of foreign countries but legal to burn the Dannebrog, Denmark's national flag, according to section 110(e) of the Danish penal code[22] because Parliament had decided that burning other countries' flags was a matter of foreign policy, as it could be construed as a threat. No.
As a side note, it is also illegal to fly any other flag than the danish flag without permission from local authorities.
That being said:
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-01-20 14:14:44
Can I just say blazed. The 'just deal with it' reference was directed at brushing off the goading and mocking pictures towards the faiths, as bullying morons, which shouldn't even be given the time of day. Not the horrendous acts of violence. Unless I've read your post wrong.
The difference with mocking religion compared to politics is, politics can have a right or wrong side that can be mocked if proven wrong.
Religion can not be proven right or wrong. So mockery of religion is only based on a persons opinion of it.
Also this (my post)was my opinion across the board in regards to all religions, not just extremists.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to
Stop trying to confuse.
I never made thus claim. Quote me please.
Respect, and treating others how you'd like to be treated isn't appeasement.Quote: If a person takes up a religion in their lives, to the point of full belief and dedicate their lives to it, then how is degrading and mocking that religion not a personal attack causing harm?
It's bullying and goading.
Degrading and Mocking are subjective and the more you become extreme and monolithic in your beliefs, the more ANYTHING can inflame you. It becomes a case of walking on eggshells. Most reasonable Muslims either ignore trolling are confident enough in their beliefs that we need not tiptoe around what is said/done for fear of violent retribution. Satire is a thing and most of Charlie Hebdo's satire was designed to troll jihadist scum.
If that means as a normie Muslim a light facepalm when you see a picture of the prophet before moving on with your life, so be it. Contextualize things.
Quote: But not everyone has the capacity to do that as history tells us. And we will never get to that point.
So what logic does it go by to goad behind a veil of free speech (which I agree isn't really a moral free speech) if it causes so much harm.
Implying that curbing free speech will somehow lessen harm. Extremists gonna extremist, normies gonna norm. Nothing changes by lessening goading and what constitutes goading is again - subjective. I'm sure some extremists think eating a pork chop should constitute death. Or not veiling should result in public lashing. Most people in the West thing that's a bunch of ***.
Take it away, Saudi Arabia.
Quote: If it comes to a choice of simply forgoing that (total free speech over human morality) in order to save lives and keep peace, surely it's a small price to pay.
You can sell away your right to voice yourself freely if you choose but your peace is nothing but an illusion. People will always disagree, resorting to violence is deplorable.
By Jetackuu 2015-01-20 14:14:58
As funny as that is, ***is on the list sir, edit it real quick before it gets the delete.
 Ragnarok.Zeig
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1851
By Ragnarok.Zeig 2015-01-20 14:22:51
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Appeasement is Charlo's argument. Mine is hat extremists don't need some crude French drawings to be thrown into a bluster because they already want you dead for not being exactly like them. So all this talk of curbing violence by not drawing pictures of the prophet or whatever is wash, because the extremists will find you by virtue of their 'divine mission'.
Divine mission to kill or convert by any means necessary a la ISIS. Can just insult extremists without insulting other 1.7 billion people.
The way Charlo worded his post made it seem like he was calling for appeasement, but he explained elsewhere that what he was really calling for is to respect people's beliefs.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Criticism is most often taken as personal insult, something you can see on these very boards. So why would it be any different if I tell a guy I don't believe in his prophet or the zany rules that apply? Eating pork can be seen as insulting to monotheists and yet I won't be curbing my swine intake any time soon. "Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion.
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 14:24:14
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Can I just say blazed. The 'just deal with it' reference was directed at brushing off the goading and mocking pictures towards the faiths, as bullying morons, which shouldn't even be given the time of day. Not the horrendous acts of violence. Unless I've read your post wrong.
The difference with mocking religion compared to politics is, politics can have a right or wrong side that can be mocked if proven wrong.
Religion can not be proven right or wrong. So mockery of religion is only based on a persons opinion of it.
Also this (my post)was my opinion across the board in regards to all religions, not just extremists.
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Negotiation is a futile effort designed only to waste your time as is appeasement which your entire argument boils down to
Stop trying to confuse.
I never made thus claim. Quote me please.
Respect, and treating others how you'd like to be treated isn't appeasement.Quote: If a person takes up a religion in their lives, to the point of full belief and dedicate their lives to it, then how is degrading and mocking that religion not a personal attack causing harm?
It's bullying and goading.
Degrading and Mocking are subjective and the more you become extreme and monolithic in your beliefs, the more ANYTHING can inflame you. It becomes a case of walking on eggshells. Most reasonable Muslims either ignore trolling are confident enough in their beliefs that we need not tiptoe around what is said/done for fear of violent retribution. Satire is a thing and most of Charlie Hebdo's satire was designed to troll jihadist scum.
If that means as a normie Muslim a light facepalm when you see a picture of the prophet before moving on with your life, so be it. Contextualize things.
Quote: But not everyone has the capacity to do that as history tells us. And we will never get to that point.
So what logic does it go by to goad behind a veil of free speech (which I agree isn't really a moral free speech) if it causes so much harm.
Implying that curbing free speech will somehow lessen harm. Extremists gonna extremist, normies gonna norm. Nothing changes by lessening goading and what constitutes goading is again - subjective. I'm sure some extremists think eating a pork chop should constitute death. Or not veiling should result in public lashing. Most people in the West thing that's a bunch of ***.
Take it away, Saudi Arabia.
Quote: If it comes to a choice of simply forgoing that (total free speech over human morality) in order to save lives and keep peace, surely it's a small price to pay.
You can sell away your right to voice yourself freely if you choose but your peace is nothing but an illusion.
Sparth your mind and heart are in the right place, but if you want uniformity across the world in values and principles you're going to be waiting a long time.
I can't for the life of me understand Football supporting. Hooligans across Europe can easily demonstrate how my lack of care for it isn't a universal value.
There are many cultures that can be incited and manipulated into violence.
Go to Serbia and throw up the wrong colors or flag and you will encounter an entire population ready to kill you.
YouTube Video Placeholder
By Jetackuu 2015-01-20 14:26:38
"Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion. No, it just states how ridiculous the conversation is, because it is true.
What insults one person is subjective, and there shouldn't be restrictions on that, for reasons as stated.
Here's an idea: if you don't want your beliefs ridiculed, don't make them be known, aka if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-01-20 14:28:50
Can just insult extremists without insulting other 1.7 billion people.
The way Charlo worded his post made it seem like he was calling for appeasement, but he explained elsewhere that what he was really calling for is to respect people's beliefs.
You couldn't possibly know the will of 1.7 billion Muslims and how many are actually offended by a crude picture of the jihadist Muhammad vs. your interpretation of the man. They are just as likely to reach the conclusion that isn't their prophet as they could become deeply offended by it.
Quote: "Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion.
There are always limits to insults governed by context. You don't insult people typically without reason. However if someones doing a critical analysis of deeply held beliefs to explain why I'm not in their camp and they become deeply offended by my conclusions then so be it.
If someone does a satirical piece on religion and people are pissed, so be it. Violence only demonstrates to all the levels of fanaticism and insecurity that spills forth from the mind of an extremist.
By Blazed1979 2015-01-20 14:31:41
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Can just insult extremists without insulting other 1.7 billion people.
The way Charlo worded his post made it seem like he was calling for appeasement, but he explained elsewhere that what he was really calling for is to respect people's beliefs.
You couldn't possibly know the will of 1.7 billion Muslims and how many are actually offended by a crude picture of the jihadist Muhammad vs. your interpretation of the man. They are just as likely to reach the conclusion that isn't their prophet as they could become deeply offended by it.
Quote: "Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion.
There are always limits to insults governed by context. You don't insult people typically without reason. However if someones doing a critical analysis of deeply held beliefs to explain why I'm not in their camp and they become deeply offended by my conclusions then so be it.
If someone does a satirical piece on religion and people are pissed, so be it. Violence only demonstrates to all the levels of fanaticism and insecurity that spills forth from the mind of an extremist.
Copout.
Charlie Hebdo didn't do what they did because someone was trying to "convert them" and get them to respect their beliefs.
Charlie Hebdo and Critical Analysis?
Satire is a tool for that?
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 14:33:48
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Can just insult extremists without insulting other 1.7 billion people.
The way Charlo worded his post made it seem like he was calling for appeasement, but he explained elsewhere that what he was really calling for is to respect people's beliefs.
You couldn't possibly know the will of 1.7 billion Muslims and how many are actually offended by a crude picture of the jihadist Muhammad vs. your interpretation of the man. They are just as likely to reach the conclusion that isn't their prophet as they could become deeply offended by it.
Quote: "Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion.
There are always limits to insults governed by context. You don't insult people typically without reason. However if someones doing a critical analysis of deeply held beliefs to explain why I'm not in their camp and they become deeply offended by my conclusions then so be it.
If someone does a satirical piece on religion and people are pissed, so be it. Violence only demonstrates to all the levels of fanaticism and insecurity that spills forth from the mind of an extremist.
Copout.
Charlie Hebdo didn't do what they did because someone was trying to "convert them" and get them to respect their beliefs.
Charlie Hebdo and Critical Analysis?
Satire is a tool for that? Uh, yes?
By charlo999 2015-01-20 14:34:09
First you need a demand to come to a appeasement. My suggestion is that respecting another persons religion at the beginning doesn't lead to a demand because they are not being mocked it the first place. So your wrong.
Also simply not mocking people like this isn't making me 'walk on eggshells'
Nominal Muslims may not react to it. Doesn't mean they are not offended.
Using, not to bow to extremists, as an excuse as a blanket statement about the right to offend all Islamic people is weak.
As is implying, not doing such things would not reduce hatred around the world regarding all religions.
You must have a very low opinion of people, I feel sorry for you.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-01-20 14:37:09
Sparth your mind and heart are in the right place, but if you want uniformity across the world in values and principles you're going to be waiting a long time.
I can't for the life of me understand Football supporting. Hooligans across Europe can easily demonstrate how my lack of care for it isn't a universal value.
There are many cultures that can be incited and manipulated into violence.
Go to Serbia and throw up the wrong colors or flag and you will encounter an entire population ready to kill you.
YouTube Video Placeholder
I don't care for a world standard as im ultimately only in charge of running myself and perhaps contributing to my slice of the planet. Saudi Arabia can continue to act like a backward nation lashing people for nonsense, parts of Africa can continue to play the tribe game and Eastern Europe can continue to let itself be divided by religion and idiotic politicians playing them like a damn fiddle.
Those are not my battles to fight as I subscribe to the Western ideal of free expression.
To throw out a personal peeve, I cannot stand the Confederate Flag and any idiot who decides to parade themselves in it or using it as a rebellion symbol considering the racist symbolism inherent in it. It's a relic of a shameful era in American history and should remain there.
However while I may look down on a person for it, I'm not going to suggest we ban Confederate flags or throw people in prison unless they commit a crime. Insulting me isn't a crime and you're free to fly the colors high over your compound if you see fit.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3544
By Bahamut.Kara 2015-01-20 14:39:12
"Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion.
I find it insulting when people come to my door with the intention of trying to convert me. It is beyond rude.
I find it insulting when people try to stop me on the street to discuss my afterlife or push pamphlets into my hands.
I find it insulting when those people then tell me I'm going to hell or am a bad person for not believing in their version of the invisible pink unicorn.
I find it insulting to read religious billboards proclaiming something for their god, or church boards telling everyone driving by that they are going to hell if they don't repent.
Many probably won't find the above annoying, insulting, or aggravating. Others will also find it insulting.
I'm not advocating taking those people's speech rights away. They are well within their rights even though it insults and annoys me.
At what point do you recommend we limit insults? Do you find the above insulting or is acceptable to you to try and convert random people or post religious scripture everywhere?
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 14:39:46
First you need a demand to come to a appeasement. My suggestion is that respecting another persons religion at the beginning doesn't lead to a demand because they are not being mocked it the first place. So your wrong.
Also simply not mocking people like this isn't making me 'walk on eggshells'
Nominal Muslims may not react to it. Doesn't mean they are not offended.
Using, not to bow to extremists as a excuse to blanket also not offending all Islam people is weak.
As is implying not doing such things would not reduce hated around the world regarding all religions.
You must have a very low opinion of people, I feel sorry for you. Demanding not to do XXX, is a demand.
Respect isn't demanded, it is earned. You don't want someone to do XXX? Then earn the respect.
[+]
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2015-01-20 14:49:42
I laughed at this picture if only because most Americans wouldn't give a *** about someone burning a state flag because they don't even know what the state flag looks like.
So edgy, I'm sure the state of New Hampshire won't be able to sleep at night.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-20 14:54:00
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »I laughed at this picture if only because most Americans wouldn't give a *** about someone burning a state flag because they don't even know what the state flag looks like. That's because most Americans aren't as great as Texans are!
Unfortunately, with Texas flag being shown pretty much anywhere and everywhere around the state, there are some people in the state that doesn't know what it looks like.....
...damn infants!
[+]
By charlo999 2015-01-20 15:01:44
Edited this post grammar was poor.
First you need a demand to come to a appeasement. My suggestion is that respecting another persons religion at the beginning doesn't lead to a demand because they are not being mocked it the first place. So your wrong.
Also simply not mocking people like this isn't making me 'walk on eggshells'
Nominal Muslims may not react to it. Doesn't mean they are not offended.
Using, not to bow to extremists as a excuse to blanket also not offending all Islam people is weak.
As is implying not doing such things would not reduce hated around the world regarding all religions.
You must have a very low opinion of people, I feel sorry for you. Demanding not to do XXX, is a demand.
Respect isn't demanded, it is earned. You don't want someone to do XXX? Then earn the respect.
I think you've missed my point.
Leave the extremists out of it a sec. They are going to find fault or a point to go against regarding there POV of religion, whatever you do.
But why insult all Muslims just to insult the very few extremists.
From a nominal Muslim point of view these pictures shouldn't be there.
I know a few who, on one hand wouldn't react through violence, but do hate these pointless pics.
I respect these people. They've earned my respect. They don't demand the pics be dropped, but I can see they are insulted. Which in turn starts to create a divide between people who are not as intelligent or informed and find these pics funny.
So from my point of view, Not theirs, id like to see it dropped, because I wish for them to live in a world without insults like this.
On this basis there is no demand, just a respectful pulling the plug on this crap.
Now from the extremists point of view, yes it is a demand. I don't see it as appeasing them though. I see it as not insulting the Muslims I respect.
If you want to see this as a total blanket statement of appeasing the extremists, and as such all Muslims. Then it's a very narrow view point.
Extremists will always find some sort of demand from those not in line with there views. It's up to us to dissect that from the repercussions of blanketing the every day religious person.
Otherwise the extremists have succeeded in one of their missions to divide us all.
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-20 15:10:42
But why insult all Muslims just to insult the very few extremists. Because society in the Middle East isn't keeping reigns on the extremists.
Not to say that they have much of a choice, but damn it if we haven't learned anything from 1939-1945 Germany.
 Asura.Ccl
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1998
By Asura.Ccl 2015-01-20 15:10:43
"Offensive is subjective so I'll just set no limits to insults".
Going down that route kills any point for any discussion.
I find it insulting when people come to my door with the intention of trying to convert me. It is beyond rude.
I find it insulting when people try to stop me on the street to discuss my afterlife or push pamphlets into my hands.
I find it insulting when those people then tell me I'm going to hell or am a bad person for not believing in their version of the invisible pink unicorn.
I find it insulting to read religious billboards proclaiming something for their god, or church boards telling everyone driving by that they are going to hell if they don't repent.
Many probably won't find the above annoying, insulting, or aggravating. Others will also find it insulting.
I'm not advocating taking those people's speech rights away. They are well within their rights even though it insults and annoys me.
At what point do you recommend we limit insults? Do you find the above insulting or is acceptable to you to try and convert random people or post religious scripture everywhere?
I think those people shouldn't be allowed to come to your doorstep or try to convince you of their truth on the street/public board.
The only thing that bother me and I can't understand is if we're smarter than those religious people why are we doing useless thing that we know will cause riot and might cause more attack on our soil ?
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 15:14:27
Edited this post grammar was poor.
First you need a demand to come to a appeasement. My suggestion is that respecting another persons religion at the beginning doesn't lead to a demand because they are not being mocked it the first place. So your wrong.
Also simply not mocking people like this isn't making me 'walk on eggshells'
Nominal Muslims may not react to it. Doesn't mean they are not offended.
Using, not to bow to extremists as a excuse to blanket also not offending all Islam people is weak.
As is implying not doing such things would not reduce hated around the world regarding all religions.
You must have a very low opinion of people, I feel sorry for you. Demanding not to do XXX, is a demand.
Respect isn't demanded, it is earned. You don't want someone to do XXX? Then earn the respect.
I think you've missed my point.
Leave the extremists out of it a sec. They are going to find fault or a point to go against regarding there POV of religion, whatever you do.
But why insult all Muslims just to insult the very few extremists.
From a nominal Muslim point of view these pictures shouldn't be there.
I know a few who, on one hand wouldn't react through violence, but do hate these pointless pics.
I respect these people. They've earned my respect. They don't demand the pics be dropped, but I can see they are insulted. Which in turn starts to create a divide between people who are not as intelligent or informed and find these pics funny.So you don't want it because it makes people think differently? That's kinda the exact point of satire.
Otherwise the extremists have succeeded in one of their missions to divide us all. The point of the extremists isn't to "divide us all". The exact opposite, in fact. Just under their view of what is right.
[+]
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 34187
By Asura.Kingnobody 2015-01-20 15:24:53
I think those people shouldn't be allowed to come to your doorstep or try to convince you of their truth on the street/public board.
The only thing that bother me and I can't understand is if we're smarter than those religious people why are we doing useless thing that we know will cause riot and might cause more attack on our soil ? That's why I have a special made T-shirt for those "visitors" to my doorstep. It says "The best fights in the world are Roman Coliseum fights."
The smart ones generally take one look at that shirt and say "sorry to bother you" and walk away.
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3692
By Bahamut.Milamber 2015-01-20 15:27:59
I think those people shouldn't be allowed to come to your doorstep or try to convince you of their truth on the street/public board.
The only thing that bother me and I can't understand is if we're smarter than those religious people why are we doing useless thing that we know will cause riot and might cause more attack on our soil ? That's why I have a special made T-shirt for those "visitors" to my doorstep. It says "The best fights in the world are Roman Coliseum fights."
The smart ones generally take one look at that shirt and say "sorry to bother you" and walk away. The Jehovah's Witness refused to believe my claims that my house was made by god.
[+]
On today's episode of P&R we take a trip to France.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/1/7/at-least-10-deadinshootingatparissatiricalmagazine.html
Quote: Gunmen stormed the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in central Paris on Wednesday, leaving at least 12 people dead and sparking a massive manhunt for the killers.
Clad all in black with hoods and machine guns and speaking flawless French, the three attackers, who are now believed to be on the run, forced one of the publication's cartoonists, Corinne Rey, who was at the office with her young daughter, to open the door. In an interview with the newspaper L'Humanité, she said the entire shooting, which left 10 journalists and two police officers dead, lasted about five minutes.
Staff members of the magazine, which has courted controversy and the offense of some Muslims for publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, were in an editorial meeting at the time. The gunmen headed straight for the paper's editor, Stéphane Charbonnier — widely known by his pen name, Charb — killing him and his police bodyguard, said Christophe Crepin, a police union spokesman on the scene.
Minutes later, gunmen were seen walking to a black car waiting below, calmly firing on a police officer, with one of the killers shooting him in the head as he writhed on the ground.
"Hey! We avenged the Prophet Muhammad! We killed Charlie Hebdo," one of the men shouted, according to a video shot from a nearby building and broadcast on French television. The video could not immediately be confirmed by Al Jazeera.
Large numbers of police and ambulances rushed to the scene, where shocked residents spilled into the streets. Reporters also saw bullet-riddled windows and people being carried out on stretchers.
Bernard Cazeneuve, France's interior minister, vowed to "track down the three criminals." He added that "all of our resources will be mobilized so that we can find out who committed this act and make sure they are punished for this act of barbarity." French authorities have said that all school trips and outdoor activities have been canceled while the gunmen are at large.
French President François Hollande headed to the scene shortly after Wednesday's shooting and said that the dead were "cowardly assassinated" and that four others were critically injured. He described the shooting as a "terrorist operation against a newspaper that has been threatened several times." He added that 40 people were being protected in the aftermath of the shooting.
Charlie Hebdo as drawn repeated threats for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, among other controversial features. The newspaper's offices were firebombed in 2011 after a spoof issue featuring a caricature of Muhammad on its cover.
A year later, the magazine published more Muhammad drawings amid an uproar over an anti-Muslim film. The cartoons depicted Muhammad naked and in demeaning or pornographic poses. The French government defended free speech even as it rebuked Charlie Hebdo for fanning tensions.
"We treat the news like journalists. Some use cameras. Some use computers. For us, it's a paper and pencil," the Muhammad cartoonist, who goes by the name Luz, told The Associated Press in 2012. "A pencil is not a weapon. It's just a means of expression."
Charbonnier, among the 10 journalists killed Wednesday, also defended the Muhammad cartoons.
He told Le Monde newspaper two years ago, "I'd rather die standing than live on my knees." One of his last cartoons, published in this week's issue, seemed an eerie premonition. "Still no attacks in France," an extremist fighter says. "Wait — we have until the end of January to present our New Year's wishes."
The attack, for which no one has yet claimed responsibility, comes amid what a number of commentators have identified as rising xenophobia in Europe, with thousands of protesters in several German cities rallying earlier this week against Muslim immigration. France's Muslim population of 5 million is Europe's largest.
"I am extremely angry. These are criminals, barbarians. They have sold their soul to hell. This is not freedom. This is not Islam, and I hope the French will come out united at the end of this," said Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy mosque in Paris' Seine-St.-Denis northern suburb.
New York–based advocacy group the Committee to Protect Journalists condemned what its deputy director, Robert Mahoney, called "a brazen assault on free expression in the heart of Europe."
I fear this will only continue to stir the growing xenophobia in Europe against Muslims worldwide. People can keep saying this 'isn't their Islam' but the extremists are the ones dominating the court of public opinion and that can only spell disaster.
|
|
