Australian Politics Forum - France terror attack is justified by Islam

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #105 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:23pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb.

I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons, but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me.

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir.

I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered.

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t.

I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

I stand with PB.

There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for.

Get miffed - really miffed. But that's the limit.

You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage. No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.

After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists. This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #106 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:36pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

I can't answer that K because I don't know French - and the only ones I've seen are in French. It would also depend on the context in which they were used. Some may be making a legitimate point about islamic atrocities, but others are simply gratuitous.

Suffice to say though that muslims seem to find them offensive. You don't have to share their offense, or even understand their offense. Thats the beauty of a free society - you are free to be offended or not be offended, and it doesn't have to make sense to other people. You are also free to express the view that they are so offensive they should not be published - just as you are free to say people are full of shlt for being offended and that the only way to protect free speech in the face of violence is to shove even more offending cartoons in muslim's faces.

I happen to believe that all the above sentiments are perfectly consistent with someone who staunchly believes in free speech. My sense though is that FD has some difficulty agreeing with this. He seems to think that employing some circumspection and saying "maybe being arseholes and publishing gratuitous cartoons for the sole purpose of offending isn't such a good idea" is being limp-wristed and giving in to the terrorists. But I would like to clarify that point with him.

Islam is alien to Europe, it has always been an enemy of Europe. Europe has been repelling Islam for about 1500 years. Islam is not wanted in Europe. The expectation that it be given equal footing just because it has blown into Europe if preposterous.

Islam is a ridiculous religion and has been regarded as such for centuries by Europe. What is more, Europe has ridiculed its own religion for at least two centuries.

For Islam, a recent and completely unwelcome and uninvited blow-in, now demanding - DEMANDING - respect is preposterous in the extreme.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #107 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:49pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

Why on earth not? I think the distinction is extremely important - the ability to say "you have a right to publish it, but I don't think you should publish it" is just as important vis-a-vis freedom of speech IMO. Otherwise aren't you saying that accepting the right of people to publish things means you must therefore support them publishing it? What happened to my freedom to oppose? You then just become every bit as anti-freedom as the other end of the scale don't you?

Quote:

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition, even outrage, towards these images and call on the publisher to desist. And in a trully fair and free society, we should not merely accept muslim's rights to do this, but embrace it as a demonstration of freedom of speech functioning as it should - even if you are at the same time denouncing them as idiots. I happen to believe you can hold all of these views and be the perfect model of a freedom loving citizen. But FD seems to believe that these expressions represent a "chipping away at our freedoms"

Quote:

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t.

I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

Caracaturising jews in our modern society is an extremely hard sell. But yes, I take your point that important things can (and possibly should) be said - depending on context. But I will never support publishing blatantly gratuitous material for the sole purpose of offending, and I do believe there is scope for the law to intervene in cases where intimidation and incitement comes into play. FD thinks this is a sinister muslim thing and can't accept the fact that a huge majority of Australians agree with me on this. He remains curiously silent about the fact that the Attorney General of this country can stand up and proudly proclaim that holocaust denial will remain a thought-crime, without so much as a whimper of protest from the (non-muslim) majority. In fact, its obvious that Brandis said this specifically because there is overwhelming community sentiment in favour of this. What FD refuses to acknowledge is that freedom extends to the freedom not to be intimidated and harassed, and therefore freedom of speech ends when it impinges on these rights. Not many Australians seem to disagree that holocaust denial, according to Brandis, is a form of racial discrimination because it is deemed to be incitement against jews - just as most Australians clearly understand that the right to criticise different races and ethnicities ends as soon as that criticism becomes incitement and intimidation.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam Reply #108 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:51pm
Back to top	IP Logged

it_is_the_light Gold Member Offline Christ Light Posts: 41434 The Pyramid of LIGHT Gender:	Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam Reply #109 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:55pm Quote: You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage. No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far. are you talking about your secret society here ? your ilk is forgiven namaste
Back to top	ॐ May Much LOVE and CHRISTS LIGHT be upon and within us all.... namasté ▲ - : ) ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯ IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #110 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:02pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:49pm:

All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition

muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition.

The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian menace.

Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM.

Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 105265
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #111 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:05pm

|dev|null wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:48am:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 5:19am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:16pm:

stryder wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:10pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 8^th, 2015 at 9:00pm:

Greg is gay.

Doesnt matter Bobby, peccarbrain is unlikeable to the extreme with me.

Would you trust him in a communal shower?

Do you use communal showers, Bobbie?

Ooooh.

About 15 years ago I used a communal shower at a swimming pool facility
& I noticed that a bloke was looking at me.
I got out of there fast.

I've never been back there.
It was creepy.

You have led a very sheltered life, haven't you Bobby? Grin

Imagine if that happened to you. Shocked

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95870
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #112 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:07pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

I can't answer that K because I don't know French - and the only ones I've seen are in French. It would also depend on the context in which they were used. Some may be making a legitimate point about islamic atrocities, but others are simply gratuitous.

Suffice to say though that muslims seem to find them offensive. You don't have to share their offense, or even understand their offense. Thats the beauty of a free society - you are free to be offended or not be offended, and it doesn't have to make sense to other people. You are also free to express the view that they are so offensive they should not be published - just as you are free to say people are full of shlt for being offended and that the only way to protect free speech in the face of violence is to shove even more offending cartoons in muslim's faces.

I happen to believe that all the above sentiments are perfectly consistent with someone who staunchly believes in free speech. My sense though is that FD has some difficulty agreeing with this. He seems to think that employing some circumspection and saying "maybe being arseholes and publishing gratuitous cartoons for the sole purpose of offending isn't such a good idea" is being limp-wristed and giving in to the terrorists. But I would like to clarify that point with him.

No, G, if you believe something is "offensive", you need to say how and why. By saying something is offensive you’re saying it offends yourself or others. You can’t just say you don’t know why if you’re saying something is offensive.

You know why.

If you don’t know why the Charlie French comics you haven’t read are offensive, why would you take others’ word that it is?

Sure, it may very well offend, but if you’re expecting others to show restraint and self censor, we need to understand why something may very well offend - or not.

After all, how can anyone be expected to shut themselves up if they don’t know how what they’re saying may hurt others?

Please explain.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam Reply #113 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:09pm You misunderstand K - I never said I personally find it offensive, I said IF I find it offensive. And yes, if I was exercising my right to oppose the cartoons, I would certainly be expressing my reasons loud and clear.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95870
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #114 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:19pm

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb.

I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons, but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me.

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir.

I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered.

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t.

I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

I stand with PB.

There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for.

Get miffed - really miffed. But that's the limit.

You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage. No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.

After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists. This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that.

And this comes from the same old boy who believes Israel has a right to kill and sieze land - because this is what people have done for centuries.

The old boy believes in offense for offense’s sake alone, and he’s very limited in who should be offended and who should be denied the right to offend. The old boy believes that no one has the right to not be offended - except the old boy’s tribe.

For the old boy, satire is purely an ideological weapon.

For others, it’s a way of opening up awareness. This, for Freud, was the very purpose of jokes - laughter is an unconscious reaction to surpressed information.

No one has the right to have a decent chuckle. All should be offended.

Except the old boy’s shibboleths.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95870
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #115 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:23pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:09pm:

You misunderstand K - I never said *I* personally find it offensive, I said *IF* I find it offensive.

And yes, if I was exercising my right to oppose the cartoons, I would certainly be expressing my reasons loud and clear.

Fair enough, but I would like to understand how the cartoons actually cause offense.

Does anyone know?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95870
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #116 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:27pm

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:49pm:

All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition

muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition.

The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian menace.

Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM.

Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible.

And here’s the old dear expressing his NON VIOLENT opposition to Gandy.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THE OLD BOY. Innit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #117 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:28pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb.

I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons, but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me.

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir.

I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered.

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t.

I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

I stand with PB.

There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for.

Get miffed - really miffed. But that's the limit.

You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage. No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.

After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists. This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that.

And this comes from the same old boy who believes Israel has a right to kill and sieze land - because this is what people have done for centuries.

The old boy believes in offense for offense’s sake alone, and he’s very limited in who should be offended and who should be denied the right to offend. The old boy believes that no one has the right to not be offended - except the old boy’s tribe.

For the old boy, satire is purely an ideological weapon.

For others, it’s a way of opening up awareness. This, for Freud, was the very purpose of jokes - laughter is an unconscious reaction to surpressed information.

No one has the right to have a decent chuckle. All should be offended.

Except the old boy’s shibboleths.

A load of disjointed BS. As always.

Make a coherent point PB, or FO. We have enough stupid drones without you muscling in.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #118 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:33pm

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:27pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:49pm:

All perfectly fine points, but it doesn't in any way delegitimise muslim's right to disagree and express non-violent opposition

muslims are not known for expressing NON-VIOLENT opposition.

The only thing Muslims are KNOWN for is violence. Islam is a violent creed, tolerating no dissent. It is a totalitarian menace.

Muslims argue their case by going to your newspaper offices and firebombing them. And if you do not mend your ways, they will come around and shoot you in the head.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH ISLAM.

Gandy, I hold you personally responsible for what happened in Paris to the extent that you are a Western Muslim and that there can be an Islam in the West that makes such an event possible.

And here’s the old dear expressing his NON VIOLENT opposition to Gandy.

YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THE OLD BOY. Innit.

F Vck orf, PB, the time for your inane BS is over. You are a stupid drongo and that's all you are.

You never had a coherent point before and your inanity is now just completely besides all conceivable points.

FO. You are as relevant as Brain.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 95870
Gender: male

Re: France terror attack is justified by Islam
Reply #119 - Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:38pm

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:28pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 10:19pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:57pm:

The reasons are very important. I would never say someone should not publish something if I believed they had a right to.publish it.

The old boy’s Jesus and Moh cartoons are mindnumbingly boring. No one would publish them in a print publication, they’re just dumb.

I haven’t seen all the Charlie cartoons, but the Moh and the hundred lashes cover is just clean fun. There is nothing offensive about it - to me.

If Muslims have an issue with non-Muslims publishing the image of Mohammed alone, that’s their problem. We know the reasons for the ban on Muhammed’s image, and modern.satire has nothing to do with them. Besides, satire is about making fun of such taboos. That’s the very point of satire. People can still be religious and amused - or religious and at least tolerant of others’ amusement.

I’d say such amusement is a necessary part of religion, but that’s just me. If you can’t laugh, you’re a zealot, and an enemy of spirituality, a kuffir.

I’m not sure if the image of Muhammed is where you’re heading, but I agree with you on publishing images purely to offend. This is not satire. As far as I can see, however, Charlie are having an important social chuckle, and to a devout PB, this is sacrosanct. For we PBs, rule-driven bores, zealots and old boys come second in the pecking order of freeedoms. They’re the underclass, and should be censored - or preferably neutered.

Images of Moh, hook-nosed Jews, and all sorts of racial or religious cliches can make important points about how we live and how we see the world. I grew up with Mad comics. Personally, I can’t think of anything that should not be the subject to caracaturization, I honestly can’t.

I know people like Y, FD and the old boy will disagree, but I’m curious. Do you?

I stand with PB.

There are sacrosanct thing - but there are none worth killing for.

Get miffed - really miffed. But that's the limit.

You start killing in the name of, on behalf of religion, you are a f Vcking savage. No excuse. You are not a victim, you are a despicable bastard. As are all your coreligionists who let you get thus far.

After this shoot up of a newspaper in Paris, I have ZERO room for apologists. This is just so f Vcked, I do not accept any apologies, excuses, mitigation - none of that.

And this comes from the same old boy who believes Israel has a right to kill and sieze land - because this is what people have done for centuries.

The old boy believes in offense for offense’s sake alone, and he’s very limited in who should be offended and who should be denied the right to offend. The old boy believes that no one has the right to not be offended - except the old boy’s tribe.

For the old boy, satire is purely an ideological weapon.

For others, it’s a way of opening up awareness. This, for Freud, was the very purpose of jokes - laughter is an unconscious reaction to surpressed information.

No one has the right to have a decent chuckle. All should be offended.

Except the old boy’s shibboleths.

A load of disjointed BS. As always.

Make a coherent point PB, or FO. We have enough stupid drones without you muscling in.

It’s perfectly coherent, old boy. What you’re saying is say what you want to hear or FO.

Sorry if pointing this out causes offense.

Back to top

IP Logged