OK so Je Suis Charlie, was a "nice" idea when it first came up as an act of solidarity. However, it is, in my opinion at least, not sustainable.

Much of the debate surrounding this series of bloody murders, terrorist violence has highlighted this to me.

It is true that, for the main part, most of the world (both the left and the right of it) had pretty much no time for Charlie Hedbo, some would have actively sought to close it down (again from both sides) if they had been previously more aware of its content.

Does that justify the murders? Never. Nothing justifies acts of violence.

Being Charlie is great if you wish to absolutely hold true to the tenets of free speech, however, the ongoing debate has demonstrated to me (not only my own ignorance about the full implications of free speech) but the en masse ignorance about this "nice" idea. Being Charlie is great if you wish to show solidarity and, also, if you have some cartooning/satirical skills.

I am not Charlie, not because I do not feel it appropriate to show some solidarity and support for poeple who were murdered, but, because I patently do not agree with many aspects of satire, however, I do accept it as a part of how we communicate and, if we are going to ever be serious about the idea of "freedom" we must understand the warts and all nature of it.

Also, not being Charlie because, I acknowledge that all freedoms have some limits on them (both enforced and in nature).

I also have this idea that the concept of free speech does not intrinsically mean I am actually free to say whatever I like. I personally think the concept is that any topic is ok, however, we do have some personal responsibility in how we "frame"  that which we want to say. This is an advantageous idea - there is an old saying about attracting flies (or bees I think) with honey rather than vinegar. There is a more recent Australianised version (excuse the language please) "you can get away with telling someone to "bugger off" if you are smiling..."

If I am deliberately provocative and abusive at the same time, then any point that I think I make is totally lost. Whereas, most people will confront difficult and contentious issues if they are approached respectfully. I say most because that is obviously not 100% effective, however, nothing is.

So, sadly, I am not Charlie. Yet, I do feel sympathy and empathy for friends and families of those murdered by mind numbingly aggressive, ignorant people who think that their actions are justified because of a faith in an organised religion.

I am also not supportive of organised religion - perhaps that makes me a bit Charlie...

Violence needs a definition.

Free-trade agreements and the worlds shennanigans at large are being discussed right now...  to me if you aren't discussing the definition of violent shennanigans and standing armies with their associated complex arguments right exactly now you hate your kids and mine...  :D :D

I've heard that saying too.

One of the most loathed Charlie cartoons was a picture of an African-French politician with the body of a monkey. Now I'm not sure what this was about, but a lot of people around the world jumped in to condemn the picture without any knowledge of the politician or what Charlie was saying about her (in French). One white American was quick to take offence, but when told that it was a comment on racism itself, said, "well, it's good to know the context for these things".

Of course it's good to know the context for these things. Knee jerk reaction to any image or statement, without context, is bigotry.

We're at a point in our history where we're free to express these things. This would never have been possible during the middle ages or even during the Enlightenment. Pamphleteers were routinely tortured and executed for complaining about their kings, parliaments or churches. Even during the 20th century, with its fascism and communism and communist witch hunts, there was huge censorship. Magazines like Playboy were banned in Australia until the 1970s. The Oz obscenity trial happened in supposedly enlightened England in 1970. Three defendants, the "Oz Three", received jail sentences.

Muslims are not the only group to have condemned Charlie. Without Charlie playing with the limits of free speech, we would not be having such discussions. Of the cartoons I've seen, I don't think, in themselves, they racially vilify anyone. Nor do I think the publication of the image of a prophet, in itself, should offend anyone. "A hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine"?

Civilization requires a certain tolerance of personally offensive viewpoints. Muslims are free to make rules and codes for themselves. I think they should be free to live under their own Sharia laws regarding family and property disputes. The Islamic ban on images of Muhammed has a purpose: it's about preventing the deification of Muhammed and not elevating him to the role of saint or demigod. Killing those who publish Muhammed's image goes against the very purpose of the ban on his image.

Regardless of this, non-Muslims are free to publish Muhammed's image. This knowledge in itself should be enough to prevent any offence caused. After all, if I enter a gay bar, I'm hardly entitled to express my offence at people expressing their gayness. If I'm a vegetarian, I'm hardly justified in being offended at the butcher's. I can feel physically sick, but the only right I have to prevent any personal offence I might feel is to not go to those places in the first place.

Vilification is another matter. If I publish an image that intends to stir hatred or violence, it deserves to be banned. Intent is important. Nude pictures of children, for example, are not illegal. Pornographic images, however, are. The image itself is not the point - nor is its use. The ban on sexual images of children is all about the intent of the photographer/publisher. It is still legal to take a picture of a nude child. It is also legal to be aroused by nude images of children. It's illegal, however, to publish images for that very purpose.

The same applies to vilification. I'm allowed to publish an image or make comments that define or caricature someone's race. Someone is also allowed to view that image and hate that particular race. But I can be sued for publishing an image that intends to inflame such hatred or violence.

Context is important. Jumping to conclusions about images based on our own prejudices is pointless from a legal or ethical point of view. If we want something to go unexpressed, it's up to us to prove how such a statement or image is intentionally bad.

Quote:

"A hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine"?

It is my understanding that it says "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter".

Wow.

A thread that has interesting, intelligent, thoughtful and mature posts.

Have I stumbled onto the wrong forum?


Or should I wait ten minutes?

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 2:19pm:

Quote: "A hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine"? It is my understanding that it says "100 lashes if you don't die of laughter".

They proved that one wrong.

Who did? Surely translating from French is not that difficult.

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 4:44pm:

Who did? Surely translating from French is not that difficult.

Good point. Maybe they thought it meant kill them all, let Allah sort it out.

Salman Rushdie weighed into the debate. He was on TV last night saying he always tunes out when people say, "I'm all for free speech, but..."

Rushdie affirmed that all speech should be totally free, no ifs or buts. There are no limits to free speech.

Presumably the people Rushdie is talking about are Western liberals. Rushdie, however, grew up in India. There, and for much of Asia, people have a completely different take on freedom of speech. When people live in small villages or high density areas, you don't want to offend your extended family and your neighbours. In India, there are deeply knitted hierarchies and people you don't want to p!ss off. The caste system is still alive. Your in-laws are often in the same house.

In China, there are state restrictions on free speech, but also cultural codes of politeness and face. These are huge, immutable social structures. Usually, what is said is not what is meant. In China, the idea of free speech is heavily qualified.

The West has evolved a dialectic process that requires confrontation. Our legal and parliamentary systems are based on this - a form of Socratic reasoning that evolved through Kant and Hegel. The media, in particular, is based on this too - two opposing sides are placed in a news story, and out of this, we expect a synthesis to appear. This, in the West, is how we uncover truth. We are expected to make a judgement. We are expected to present an argument. We are expected to argue and rebut.

Free speech comes with responsibilities. If it's just a form of reaction, it's slavery, not freedom. If it's just an ego trip, it serves no social good at all. The interests of the individual are not always in the interest of the community.

Such neoliberal ideology is considered ludicrous in most of the world. At its worst, it can inspire tyranny, not freedom.

Liberalism - the ideas of John Stuart Mill - is exactly what radical Islam stands against. Within Islam, freedom requires discipline, it just uses different terms. Freedom is not one of them. Submission to God is freedom. The family and community are the site of ethics, not the individual.

In this sense, sure, there is a clash of civilizations, but it's only radical Islam that is on the sticky end of it - in large part, due to its strident opposition to Western liberalism.

Karnal are you saying they hate our freedoms?

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Karnal are you saying they hate our freedoms?

It might help if you defined Freeeedom, FD.

It shouldn't be hard. Almost all Western philosophy since Jeremy Bentham is about just this.

Nice deflection. Abu would be proud.

dont expect a reply karnal from fd he could be greenswin the way he dodges them.


.
Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Free speech comes with responsibilities.

I just wanted to comment on this comment..as this now awful business has turned into a

FREEDOM OF SPEECH   

   its under  threat...

when in fact sensible people no that isnt true...

there is and never was  FREEDOM OF SPEECH... anywhere...only what the powers that be ALLOW...

if as has been said I wanted to show porn on this forum
I would be hounded out....if I didnt go. I am sure someone would threaten me...I have already been called some choice words all because I thought the cartoon should have gone...and I still do the BULLIES on here havent distracted me...

btw they dont see themselves as bullies.. ah ah.. its always the other guy.. ;)

This issue is more than just about freedom of speech... Its also about the refusal to accept that, in a society which separates church/religion and state, an act of blasphemy should be proscribed.

Religion descends to commit the greatest evils when it controls the state.

cods wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 2:44pm:

dont expect a reply karnal from fd he could be greenswin the way he dodges them.

Sinister, no?

Mind you, I've given up expecting a reply from FD. FD and Sprint are now the gold medal taqiyya performers when it comes to evasion.

But only FD gets a gold medal in deflection.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:52pm:

One of the most loathed Charlie cartoons was a picture of an African-French politician with the body of a monkey. Now I'm not sure what this was about, but a lot of people around the world jumped in to condemn the picture without any knowledge of the politician or what Charlie was saying about her (in French). One white American was quick to take offence, but when told that it was a comment on racism itself, said, "well, it's good to know the context for these things". Of course it's good to know the context for these things. Knee jerk reaction to any image or statement, without context, is bigotry. We're at a point in our history where we're free to express these things. This would never have been possible during the middle ages or even during the Enlightenment. Pamphleteers were routinely tortured and executed for complaining about their kings, parliaments or churches. Even during the 20th century, with its fascism and communism and communist witch hunts, there was huge censorship. Magazines like Playboy were banned in Australia until the 1970s. The Oz obscenity trial happened in supposedly enlightened England in 1970. Three defendants, the "Oz Three", received jail sentences. Muslims are not the only group to have condemned Charlie. Without Charlie playing with the limits of free speech, we would not be having such discussions. Of the cartoons I've seen, I don't think, in themselves, they racially vilify anyone. Nor do I think the publication of the image of a prophet, in itself, should offend anyone. "A hundred lashes if you don't buy this magazine"? Civilization requires a certain tolerance of personally offensive viewpoints. Muslims are free to make rules and codes for themselves. I think they should be free to live under their own Sharia laws regarding family and property disputes. The Islamic ban on images of Muhammed has a purpose: it's about preventing the deification of Muhammed and not elevating him to the role of saint or demigod. Killing those who publish Muhammed's image goes against the very purpose of the ban on his image. Regardless of this, non-Muslims are free to publish Muhammed's image. This knowledge in itself should be enough to prevent any offence caused. After all, if I enter a gay bar, I'm hardly entitled to express my offence at people expressing their gayness. If I'm a vegetarian, I'm hardly justified in being offended at the butcher's. I can feel physically sick, but the only right I have to prevent any personal offence I might feel is to not go to those places in the first place. Vilification is another matter. If I publish an image that intends to stir hatred or violence, it deserves to be banned. Intent is important. Nude pictures of children, for example, are not illegal. Pornographic images, however, are. The image itself is not the point - nor is its use. The ban on sexual images of children is all about the intent of the photographer/publisher. It is still legal to take a picture of a nude child. It is also legal to be aroused by nude images of children. It's illegal, however, to publish images for that very purpose. The same applies to vilification. I'm allowed to publish an image or make comments that define or caricature someone's race. Someone is also allowed to view that image and hate that particular race. But I can be sued for publishing an image that intends to inflame such hatred or violence. Context is important. Jumping to conclusions about images based on our own prejudices is pointless from a legal or ethical point of view. If we want something to go unexpressed, it's up to us to prove how such a statement or image is intentionally bad.

You've over-analysed this. It's clearly the fault of Christians and Conservatives.

Quote:

FREEDOM OF SPEECH      its under  threat...when in fact sensible people no that isnt true...

That is your dumbest post so far cods. Every time I ask you to explain this crap you run away.


Quote:

there is and never was  FREEDOM OF SPEECH... anywhere...only what the powers that be ALLOW...

You don't recognise it because it was handed to you on a platter cods. You are lucky, but you do not realise it.


Quote:

if as has been said I wanted to show porn on this forum

Cods I have explained this to you at least a dozen times already. You are yet to even acknowledge the response. You just keep posting the same stupid thing over and over again. Not sure how to dumb it down any more for you. Which part are you having trouble comprehending?


Quote:

Religion descends to commit the greatest evils when it controls the state.

This is what cods wants.

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

Salman Rushdie weighed into the debate. He was on TV last night saying he always tunes out when people say, "I'm all for free speech, but..." Rushdie affirmed that all speech should be totally free, no ifs or buts. There are no limits to free speech. Presumably the people Rushdie is talking about are Western liberals. Rushdie, however, grew up in India. There, and for much of Asia, people have a completely different take on freedom of speech. When people live in small villages or high density areas, you don't want to offend your extended family and your neighbours. In India, there are deeply knitted hierarchies and people you don't want to p!ss off. The caste system is still alive. Your in-laws are often in the same house. In China, there are state restrictions on free speech, but also cultural codes of politeness and face. These are huge, immutable social structures. Usually, what is said is not what is meant. In China, the idea of free speech is heavily qualified. The West has evolved a dialectic process that requires confrontation. Our legal and parliamentary systems are based on this - a form of Socratic reasoning that evolved through Kant and Hegel. The media, in particular, is based on this too - two opposing sides are placed in a news story, and out of this, we expect a synthesis to appear. This, in the West, is how we uncover truth. We are expected to make a judgement. We are expected to present an argument. We are expected to argue and rebut. Free speech comes with responsibilities. If it's just a form of reaction, it's slavery, not freedom. If it's just an ego trip, it serves no social good at all. The interests of the individual are not always in the interest of the community. Such neoliberal ideology is considered ludicrous in most of the world. At its worst, it can inspire tyranny, not freedom. Liberalism - the ideas of John Stuart Mill - is exactly what radical Islam stands against. Within Islam, freedom requires discipline, it just uses different terms. Freedom is not one of them. Submission to God is freedom. The family and community are the site of ethics, not the individual. In this sense, sure, there is a clash of civilizations, but it's only radical Islam that is on the sticky end of it - in large part, due to its strident opposition to Western liberalism.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Karnal are you saying they hate our freedoms?

That's all you got from the above post? Seriously...

Karnal's response to that ill conceived obtuse question was spot on....

The POINT being, not only every culture/religion/social grouping has its own view on what Freedumb is, it is even more individualistic.

As such, from my perspective, I would say yes absolutely they hate our freedumb just as much as we hate theirs...

Karnal, great posts thank you.

What is their version of freedom and why do you hate it?

I remember Abu arguing that chopping someone's head off for blasphemy is merely a "different take" on freedom. This is the first time I have seen a non-Muslim go down that path. Maybe we really do need a thread on this topic, so you can explain that Muslim terrorists really are freedom of fighters and cods can demand I remove the swear word filter so she can call someone a c___ every time they point out how stupid her posts are.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 10:45am:

What is their version of freedom and why do you hate it? I remember Abu arguing that chopping someone's head off for blasphemy is merely a "different take" on freedom. This is the first time I have seen a non-Muslim go down that path. Maybe we really do need a thread on this topic, so you can explain that Muslim terrorists really are freedom of fighters and cods can demand I remove the swear word filter.

Well mr Squirmy - absolutely demonstrate where I have justified any form of violence against another as being a demonstration of freedom...

You are very good at doing the worm but are sorely lacking at backing it up.

Further, start a thread up by all means if you like, however, in the already existing thread (namely, this one) there is ample opportunity for that conversation, thanks in  large part to Karnal who posted an EXCELLENT description of how different perspectives of freedom are and could be...

Yet, all you managed to glean from that was


freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:17am:

Karnal are you saying they hate our freedoms?

Whereas the entire post was far more nuanced than that overly simplistic, one eyed statement based in hate and ignorance...

Quote:

Further, start a thread up by all means if you like,

You are the one insisting it needs an answer. To me it just looks like another stupid question.


Quote:

Whereas the entire post was far more nuanced than that overly simplistic, one eyed statement based in hate and ignorance...

So I shouldn't ask a simple question in response to a 'nuanced' post?


Quote:

thanks in  large part to Karnal who posted an EXCELLENT description of how different perspectives of freedom are and could be...

I don't think the Chinese view state censorship as a type of freedom of speech. Nor is not wanting to insult your grandmother a different perspective on freedom of speech.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 10:12am:

Quote: FREEDOM OF SPEECH      its under  threat...when in fact sensible people no that isnt true... That is your dumbest post so far cods. Every time I ask you to explain this crap you run away. fine dont read themn then   you never answer so why should anyone else.. and on top of that you are pig rude.. [quote]there is and never was  FREEDOM OF SPEECH... anywhere...only what the powers that be ALLOW...

You don't recognise it because it was handed to you on a platter cods. You are lucky, but you do not realise it.


why cant I call you a M)RON YOU STUPID ONE EYED LEFTY????....lets see if FREEDOM OF SPEECH WORKS ON FDS WEB?...


Quote:

if as has been said I wanted to show porn on this forum

Cods I have explained this to you at least a dozen times already. You are yet to even acknowledge the response. You just keep posting the same stupid thing over and over again. Not sure how to dumb it down any more for you. Which part are you having trouble comprehending?


Quote:

Religion descends to commit the greatest evils when it controls the state.

This is what cods wants.[/quote]


and death at least for others from other countries is what fd wants..


he doesnt mind OTHERS being killed for a cartoon for christ sake..

you are so =dumb I cant even be bothered anymore..

dont understand it.. TOUGH,.I cant help it if your THICK AS TWO SHORT PLANKS....

gees I like this FREEDOM OF SPEECH>

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

The West has evolved a dialectic process that requires confrontation. Our legal and parliamentary systems are based on this - a form of Socratic reasoning that evolved through Kant and Hegel. The media, in particular, is based on this too - two opposing sides are placed in a news story, and out of this, we expect a synthesis to appear. This, in the West, is how we uncover truth. We are expected to make a judgement. We are expected to present an argument. We are expected to argue and rebut.

In theory, yes, but I think the reality is this idealism is only skin deep. The mainstream media especially really only gives the illusion of this - a genuine argument is only achieved if the "truth" reiterates and confirms official establishment positions, with few exceptions. Of course they are obliged to present opposing views, but this is merely tokenistic.

The reality is we live in a society where Kant and Socrates lofty ideals of rational thought are just things we occasionally fantasise about in the abstract, and grandstand about when tragedies like Charlie Hebdo happen. But when it comes down to it, we are as closed minded and irrational as the rest of the world. The difference of course is that we could be more open minded and objective if we chose to - we have the social and political institutions in place to promote and protect us being so. Yet we usually don't want it - and in fact more often than not we look to the state to suppress our freedoms, not protect them. And even worse, the establishment usually supports us in this endeavor: before everyone was "Je Suis Charlie", Charlie was condemned from all quarters, to the extent that people - including authorities were calling for it to be banned. Then we have those ridiculous holocaust denial laws all over Europe. The current western philosophy seems to be - "we decide what is rational and acceptable in public discourse, now you are free to agree with this - and only this."

Mr Squirmy I love it...fits like a glove phem.....

he hasnt answered a question yet but keeps claiming he has.. and its you or I that isnt answering.. what a liar..

he cant wriggle off the hook.. so he doesnt mind stooping to lying..

dont think I will bother with him anymore.. I hate liars.. and evasive people..con men in other words.,

cods wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:48pm:

he hasnt answered a question yet but keeps claiming he has

- while giving no hint at all to what that alleged answer was about or where he gave it. Just a lengthy rant about how stupid you are for not "getting it". This is one of FD's favourite tricks.

Pick any of cods' favourite idiotic questions. I will quote you half a dozen direct answers to it, just to highlight my efforts to dumb it down for her.


Quote:

In theory, yes, but I think the reality is this idealism is only skin deep. The mainstream media especially really only gives the illusion of this

The mainstream media is a business. Why would you even expect idealism from it?


Quote:

Of course they are obliged to present opposing views, but this is merely tokenistic.

Only in some cases to reduce the risk of libel suits. For the most part, it is just sound journalism. Even lazy journalism. Get quotes from two people who disagree. Introduce it with something to make it timely. Stick it beside the ad for BMW.


Quote:

The reality is we live in a society where Kant and Socrates lofty ideals of rational thought are just things we occasionally fantasise about in the abstract

That's because our freedoms are rarely challenged. It was not that long ago that you agreed that there was nothing we were forbidden from saying in Australia.


Quote:

and grandstand about when tragedies like Charlie Hebdo happen

It is not mere grandstanding. We have slaughtered millions, and will again if necessary. It just looks like grandstanding now because the threat is still relatively small. We have put our cartoonists on it. We will follow through if necessary. You know this.


Quote:

But when it comes down to it, we are as closed minded and irrational as the rest of the world.

Just like you, until you thought about it. Charlie Hebdo will make more people think about things like 18c, and they will reach the same conclusion as you. It is pretty much inevitable that people will get over the holocaust.


Quote:

The difference of course is that we could be more open minded and objective if we chose to - we have the social and political institutions in place to promote and protect us being so.

And we are. We are more open minded and objective than ever, and getting more so, because we value this.


Quote:

Yet we usually don't want it - and in fact more often than not we look to the state to suppress our freedoms, not protect them. And even worse, the establishment usually supports us in this endeavor: before everyone was "Je Suis Charlie", Charlie was condemned from all quarters, to the extent that people - including authorities were calling for it to be banned.

And now their hypocrisy is front page news. They will think twice next time. Charlie Hebdo is making free speech stronger.

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 10:45am:

What is their version of freedom and why do you hate it? I remember Abu arguing that chopping someone's head off for blasphemy is merely a "different take" on freedom. This is the first time I have seen a non-Muslim go down that path. Maybe we really do need a thread on this topic, so you can explain that Muslim terrorists really are freedom of fighters and cods can demand I remove the swear word filter so she can call someone a c___ every time they point out how stupid her posts are.

Good idea, FD. I’d like Cods to call me a c....

Looks like you’ve found your new Abu.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 3:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 9:34am: The West has evolved a dialectic process that requires confrontation. Our legal and parliamentary systems are based on this - a form of Socratic reasoning that evolved through Kant and Hegel. The media, in particular, is based on this too - two opposing sides are placed in a news story, and out of this, we expect a synthesis to appear. This, in the West, is how we uncover truth. We are expected to make a judgement. We are expected to present an argument. We are expected to argue and rebut. In theory, yes, but I think the reality is this idealism is only skin deep. The mainstream media especially really only gives the illusion of this - a genuine argument is only achieved if the "truth" reiterates and confirms official establishment positions, with few exceptions. Of course they are obliged to present opposing views, but this is merely tokenistic. The reality is we live in a society where Kant and Socrates lofty ideals of rational thought are just things we occasionally fantasise about in the abstract, and grandstand about when tragedies like Charlie Hebdo happen. But when it comes down to it, we are as closed minded and irrational as the rest of the world. The difference of course is that we could be more open minded and objective if we chose to - we have the social and political institutions in place to promote and protect us being so. Yet we usually don't want it - and in fact more often than not we look to the state to suppress our freedoms, not protect them. And even worse, the establishment usually supports us in this endeavor: before everyone was "Je Suis Charlie", Charlie was condemned from all quarters, to the extent that people - including authorities were calling for it to be banned. Then we have those ridiculous holocaust denial laws all over Europe. The current western philosophy seems to be - "we decide what is rational and acceptable in public discourse, now you are free to agree with this - and only this."

I’m not so sure, G. The internet has changed everything. In the last decade alone, we’ve seen Wikileaks, the Arab Spring, and even a state mediated form of social media in China.

Every time I made a never-ever prediction in the past ten years, I got it wrong: Mubarrak would keep power (he was jailed), Gaddafi would win the day (he was stabbed by a mob), Julian Assange would be arrested by the Yanks (he’s still holed up in the Equadorian Embassy).

Mind you, we saw a reaction to all these things: the generals are back in charge in Egypt, Obama’s more of a hawk than Bush, and on and on it goes.

I did get one thing right back in 2001: we would go into Iraq, and we would turn the country into a failed state, putting the world at far higher risk of terrorism. My most paranoid speculation was realised when ISIL took Mosul. I could never have predicted that.

The last decade has showed just how loose the plates are that hold the world together, but also, when the dust settles, just how strong the old order is.

The Western thinkers I referred to did not create a set of values or ideals, they shaped the structures of Western thought. We do think in dialectics. This is not just a function of language as the linguists say, it’s a function of Western reason. The two, of course, go together.

Freeeedom is limited to what we can think and say. We’re constrained by our history of ideas and our language, but I’m always amazed at how quick things change.

And how much they stay the same.

Cheese, anyone?

freediver wrote on Jan 17^th, 2015 at 7:49pm:

Cheese, anyone?

Miam miam.

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 9:34am:

The West has evolved a dialectic process that requires confrontation. Our legal and parliamentary systems are based on this - a form of Socratic reasoning that evolved through Kant and Hegel. The media, in particular, is based on this too - two opposing sides are placed in a news story, and out of this, we expect a synthesis to appear. This, in the West, is how we uncover truth. We are expected to make a judgement. We are expected to present an argument. We are expected to argue and rebut.

We "progressives" have evolved argumentation methods beyond that of Kant and Hegel. By screeching "racist" and "bigot" against opposing positions, we have truly found the Holy Grail of Reason.