Cods you seem to think your way will produce the better outcome. So why do you completely refuse, despite me asking dozens of times, to discuss what you think the likely consequences of your spineless appeasement would be?

cods wrote on Jan 24^th, 2015 at 10:25pm:
Wise words cods.  Thanks, I enjoyed the read. 

There's a difference between it being unlawful in a western society to lampoon religious figures ~ and it being lawful.

That's the whole point of the argument.

Does the west revert back a few centuries to make blasphemy a jailing offence, or do we accept that rationalist secularism now dictates judicial policy on this?

Quote:


Not going to work on ANZAC day is not the same as remembering what they died for cods. You would throw their sacrifice away and welcome Hitler back under a different name.

Quote:


Do you think this should be banned cods?

Quote:


I don't think our soldiers died so that spineless appeasers could welcome a different label of fascist and throw our rights away at their feet. If we have to fight another war every time a different bunch of lunatics dreams up a different kind of fascism because we are too stupid to see it for what it is, then we are doomed.

Quote:


When are you going to own your own opinions pansi rather than trying desperately to change the topic every time you are challenged on them? You mock others for being brave behind a computer. You manage the worst kind of spineless appeasement from the safety of a keyboard.

Quote:


A lot of spineless appeasers said the same thing about the Nazis. At the time our soldiers had not yet fought a war against the Nazis. Would you have been equally spineless and oblivious to the threat because it had a new label?

Quote:


Into cheese eating surrender monkeys? Who are incapable of backing our position beyond repeating a small number of idiotic mantras, interspersed with half formed sentences and inane drivel?

Quote:


It is not the same thing Herb. They can hold whatever views they want about their prophet being beyond criticism. What they cannot do is demand we share those views.

ISIS, who inspired these attacks, is actually raping people's mothers, and being quite open about it. These are the people who cods, pansi and phem think will leave us alone if we merely sacrifice our freedom of speech for them.

freediver wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:47am:


But hang on, let's be fair here. There's no greater Nazi on this board than me, but all of us holding to certain contradictory views cannot be reasonably equated with deliberately publishing stuff that is designed to offend and insult what a section of society believe to be sacred and religiously cherished.

I DON'T think publishing such cartoons should be in violation of the law ~ but I most certainly can sympathise with Muslims thinking it's foul play and a delinquent misuse of journalistic freedom.

Did Charlie Hebdo's cartoons relate to actual events taking place in the Middle East - or was its brief to be simply generally insulting and obnoxious towards Muslims? (I don't know).

I have sat with a room-full of Muslim workmate friends who were appalled at the time of Ayotollah Khomeini when cartoons showed American soldiers sticking the American flag up the Ayotollah's arse in a parody of the famous Iwo Jima classic.

I found that hilarious, and had to bite down hard on my tongue, but the guys around me were utterly mortified by this, and none of them were Iranian.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 25^th, 2015 at 9:58am:




do you still find it humous herb??

its to be noticed you dont like being teased by greg do you??>...do you find that a sort of bullying???

one or two come out and support him... does it upset you well I presume it does as you have started threads on the subject....

maybe if you look at what those muslims were upset about and then look at what upsets you....

you will find a common denominator!!!!

bullying ridiculing upsetting.insulting..maybe its just a shot.