Shootings in Paris

[goalmole]

no it isn't.

It's about people having to the right to think and say what they want, and not be murdered for it.

Hardly a difficult or controversial concept.

That's NOT the argument though. We all pretty well agree, I think, that we have no intention of going back to the days of condemning people to death for blasphemy. The argument is about whether one person's right to say what they want doesn't over-ride the responsibility to ensure it doesn't cause genuine offence to others. And that they recognise there might be an element of risk in saying it.

Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....

plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.

In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.

If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.

You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.

I don't think any Muslim would care less if it was the religion of Islam that was attacked or had fun poked at it. You only have to go on Youtube to prove this.
The thing that any Muslim of any sect or denomination is not prepared to accept is the defamation of the name or character of Mohammad. There is a huge difference in the eyes of a Muslim between attacking Islam and besmirching the name of Mohammad. By all means criticise Islam but leave Mohammad alone.
It is something that for them is beyond sacrosanct. It is the thing, as Prestwich Blue has pointed out previously, that they will defend with their lives.

 

[TCIB]

Am i the only one who keeps thinking of this tune when they see this thread title ?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44[/video]

 

[Gelsons Dad]

That's NOT the argument though. We all pretty well agree, I think, that we have no intention of going back to the days of condemning people to death for blasphemy. The argument is about whether one person's right to say what they want doesn't over-ride the responsibility to ensure it doesn't cause genuine offence to others. And that they recognise there might be an element of risk in saying it.

Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....

plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.

In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.

If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.

You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.

I don't think any Muslim would care less if it was the religion of Islam that was attacked or had fun poked at it. You only have to go on Youtube to prove this.
The thing that any Muslim of any sect or denomination is not prepared to accept is the defamation of the name or character of Mohammad. There is a huge difference in the eyes of a Muslim between attacking Islam and besmirching the name of Mohammad. By all means criticise Islam but leave Mohammad alone.
It is something that for them is beyond sacrosanct. It is the thing, as Prestwich Blue has pointed out previously, that they will defend with their lives.

Because they are completely stupid. He was a bloke who made shit up about a sky fairy to gain power.

 

[squirtyflower]

That's NOT the argument though. We all pretty well agree, I think, that we have no intention of going back to the days of condemning people to death for blasphemy. The argument is about whether one person's right to say what they want doesn't over-ride the responsibility to ensure it doesn't cause genuine offence to others. And that they recognise there might be an element of risk in saying it.

Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....

plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.

In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.

If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.

You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.

I don't think any Muslim would care less if it was the religion of Islam that was attacked or had fun poked at it. You only have to go on Youtube to prove this.
The thing that any Muslim of any sect or denomination is not prepared to accept is the defamation of the name or character of Mohammad. There is a huge difference in the eyes of a Muslim between attacking Islam and besmirching the name of Mohammad. By all means criticise Islam but leave Mohammad alone.
It is something that for them is beyond sacrosanct. It is the thing, as Prestwich Blue has pointed out previously, that they will defend with their lives.

But they didn't defend it with their lives did they, they used the lives of others

 

[happy daze]

Well this BBC reporter has had to apologise.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551612/Tim-Willcox-apologises-BBC-Paris-march-Palestinian-Jewish
Don't know why it's true,what's the point of holding a pencil up or a placard "Je suis charlie" or believing in free speech then complain when someone says something you don't like,got to work both ways.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

That's NOT the argument though. We all pretty well agree, I think, that we have no intention of going back to the days of condemning people to death for blasphemy. The argument is about whether one person's right to say what they want doesn't over-ride the responsibility to ensure it doesn't cause genuine offence to others. And that they recognise there might be an element of risk in saying it.

Well, some people have hardly been convincing on the issue of retaliatory measures....

plus, there's a difference between calling people deliberately offensive names to their face about things they have no control over, and publishing a cartoon about something you might believe in.

In terms of religion, it's a very slippery slope in terms of being seen to prefer/condone 1 religion over another in a political sense, plus, beliefs are not a direct attack on anything a person cannot do about (i.e. physical characteristics), so again it's a different level and issue entirely.

If you can't accept people poking fun at your beliefs, then rather than getting moody and murdering people you should perhaps seriously question and analyse what they really are and what they mean, and thus understand and accept why people can poke them.

You choose to believe in things, therefore you should be prepared to defend them, prepared to debate them, prepared to accept other people don't agree, think you're stupid and would like to poke fun at them.

I don't think any Muslim would care less if it was the religion of Islam that was attacked or had fun poked at it. You only have to go on Youtube to prove this.
The thing that any Muslim of any sect or denomination is not prepared to accept is the defamation of the name or character of Mohammad. There is a huge difference in the eyes of a Muslim between attacking Islam and besmirching the name of Mohammad. By all means criticise Islam but leave Mohammad alone.
It is something that for them is beyond sacrosanct. It is the thing, as Prestwich Blue has pointed out previously, that they will defend with their lives.

There's no differential, it's still a belief, nothing more.

 

[Anonymous]

Well this BBC reporter has had to apologise.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/551612/Tim-Willcox-apologises-BBC-Paris-march-Palestinian-Jewish
Don't know why it's true,what's the point of holding a pencil up or a placard "Je suis charlie" or believing in free speech then complain when someone says something you don't like,got to work both ways.

Nobody wants to hear balance, nobody wants to hear hypocrisy and a few on here won't even click that link.

Double standards.

 

[Metal Biker]

You still seem to be struggling with the point I made in my first post, which you appear to have decided to disagree with even though your subsequent posts indicate that you didn't necessarily understand it. I will try again.

A common response made in western society by both individuals, and by state and law enforcement agencies, to increasing crime levels is to undertake measures that infringe upon other areas of our private and personal lives. The example I gave in my first post is that you lock the door when you go out at night. As a society we encourage our members to take this individual responsibility, and as individuals we act in a way that reduces the threat of crime to society as a whole: because if the police suggest that we lock our doors at night, and we all do, burglars have a more difficult task than if everyone leaves them unlocked all the time.

You're saying that i'm suggesting that taking precautions against societal crime equals cowardice in the same context as appeasing murderers who cannot accept or adapt to the laws of another society which is at odds to their own personal beliefs?

But it is important to appreciate that when we do this, we act in a way which erodes our own personal freedom. It should be nobody's business but my own whether I lock my door. I should have the right, and should be free to exercise the right, to leave my door not only unlocked but wide open all night if I so choose.

This is a known fact, yes, that society would be perfect but for the odd few who keep f**king things up for the rest of us. We'd all like to be able to live in a society where crime is none existent. But we're not on about crime are we; we're discussing whether it is ethical to engage with dialogue with people whose ideas of reform include murdering unless they get their way and those who feel that that is a viable solution to the problem of extremism. Not the same is it!

So it is as valid and principled a stance to say 'down with those who encourage us to fit burglar alarms, and lock upper floor windows, and fasten bolts' as it is to say 'down with those who cower in the face of islamic fundamentalism and who would limit our right to make fun of Islam's central character'. The first set of activities flies in the face of the fundamental tenet of western society that ownership of personal property is sacrosanct, and that everybody is entitled to enjoy quiet possession of their homes and their contents within the law, without them being ransacked by those who have no respect for values of personal property. The second flies in the face of the fundamental tenet of western society that freedom of expression is sacrosanct and that everybody is entitled to express their views in whatever way and on whatever subject, within the law, they choose to without being exposed to the risk that they will be attacked by those who have no respect for values of freedom of expression.

No it isn't valid at all. It's petty. You're making similarities with two situations which do not correlate at all in an attempt to prove me otherwise. People who encourage us to take steps against theft is not on the same scale as people suggesting we 'take the extremists views into account' on the subject of ridicule. Being asked to fit a burglar alarm by the authorities will not alter the personal freedoms of people compared to forcing people to accept that a certain viewpoint which is not wholly accepted as being one that causes offence. Nobody is going to kill me if I refuse to fit a burglar alarm. It might have an effect as a result of a burglar entering my house and killing me, but what would you say, I deserved to be killed because I didn't listen to the advice of the authorities in fitting a burglar alarm which could have saved my life, rather than focusing the blame on the perpetrator, the burglar himself? Madness!

However, even though it is a principle of almost all western societies that you can do whatever you want provided it isn't unlawful, we are nonetheless encouraged to exercise those freedoms in a circumscribed way in order to avoid the risk of crime. Here are some examples.

'If you are a young female, don't go out on your own in poorly lit areas'. Why on earth shouldn't they? Young females have every right to go wherever they like whenever they like.

'Don't leave valuables on display in your car'. Why on earth not? I have an absolute right to do what I want with my own property in my own car. Why should I pander to those who cannot understand that the contents of my car are not theirs to pilfer just because the fancy takes them?

These are all views I agree with, so what is your point in regards to appeasing bullies? The world is a shitty place, we know this, what you and others have suggested is that the best way of dealing with someone who mugs you is understanding why they feel the need to steal your items. No, they need to understand that stealing is wrong. Plain and simple, handling them with kid gloves serves to help no-one.

How western society endorses its right to respect for personal safety and property and whether advice along the above lines is no more and no less pandering to the criminals who threaten our liberties as western society endorsing its right to free speech by asking those exercising that freedom to exercise that freedom in a responsible way. Both involve an encroachment upon our general liberties, and it is wrong to characterise as cowardice a response which, in other contexts, as the above examples demonstrate, is treated generally as nothing more than applied common sense.

We all get your point - a freedom which cannot be exercised in an irresponsible way is no freedom at all. But there is nothing cowardly in considering either as individuals or as a society whether a degree of circumspection is appropriate. That is simply pragmatism.

It IS when you consider the mentality of the individual mindset you want to understand or change. To a burglar who seeks to risk freedom for profit compared to a murderer who kills because he was at odds with another persons viewpoint.

I don't think either of us are going to understand one another. You have your view, I have mine. I just find it amusing that from one little word which you have taken so much offence to you felt the need and have taken lengths in your replies to attempt to change my mind. Well not so much amusing, just comparisons with the discussion on these pages appear to have been played out. :)

 

[johnny on the spot]

The next Charlie Hebdo cover has been posted on Twitter and elsewhere and indeed features a Muslim man (Mohammed?) holding a placard saying 'Je Suis Charlie', with the headline:'Tout est pardonne' (All is forgiven). The shape of the character's head has already drawn comment for resembling a cock and balls.

 

[Metal Biker]

I am in no way supporting the Muslim violent response to the events. It is wrong to take law into one's hands universally and Islamically as well. I was trying to understand how far the freedom of speech and expression can go. In India, the law itself prohibits deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any one. So, one can approach the law without a problem. Would like to know if there is any similar laws in England.

It's fairly straight forward; with European countries shifting to a more secular outlook, religious belief is seen more as a choice and since choices can be mocked, religion is seen as fair game for ridicule in comparison to being gay or different skin colour, which you could probably accept that is not something which can be ''changed''.

Naturally I accept that to anyone who is Christian, Jewish or a Muslim that they would hold a different view and that their faith is something which is the major part of their soul but i'm not here to debate if the secular view is right or wrong, just to highlight the fact that all religious beliefs are free to be mocked with the understanding that it could cause offence to some. The line is crossed however when ridicule becomes discriminatory or an attempt to make another to be inferior. What defines that can be sketchy, but there are options people can take to voice their opposition to whatever they find offensive, OFCOM, Press Complaints Commission, things like that, and they will do whatever is required in conjunction with the law to determine if a crime has been committed.

Think of it on Bluemoon; People can post what they like, but if someone finds offence to it they can refer the post and the user to one of the moderators who will judge if it has contravened the COC. If it hasn't the post stays up, if it has, it's gone and the poster usually suspended or banned.