Was that the course on "Morality and Cosmology: Can we make a case for a just God in a universe that invented Desenex powder" ?I know. I took an ethics class taught by your foot fungus.
Was that the course on "Morality and Cosmology: Can we make a case for a just God in a universe that invented Desenex powder" ?I know. I took an ethics class taught by your foot fungus.
Since that glorious “free speech” march, France has reportedly opened 54 criminal cases for “condoning terrorism.” AP reported this morning that “France ordered prosecutors around the country to crack down on hate speech, anti-Semitism and glorifying terrorism.”
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...ch-france-arrests-comedian-facebook-comments/
On Sunday, 3.7 million people gathered all over France to mourn the lives of those killed in last week's Charlie Hebdo attack. It was almost a moving collective stand for freedom of expression in the face of terror and fear—except that its most prominent supporters are much greater threats to a free press than terrorism.
http://justice.gawker.com/these-world-leaders-are-a-worse-threat-to-free-press-th-1679032136
The western media gets latitude to do/print what they want for a number of reasons:Wonderful thread. My thoughts turn in a slightly different direction.
Do people with a larger voice(I.e the media) have a different standard against which they should be measured?
An example might help. During the conflict in the Balkans I knew a Croat who really hated Serbs and said that they deserve to die because they were scum and he would willingly express this point of view openly over a few cocktails. As I understand the argument here, we needn't agree with him but he has the right to express his views.
Now, if he were a journalist or cartoonist, should he be held accountable in a different way if he expresses his opinion given that his opinions could a) Offend a larger audience or b) motivate some in his audience to use his words as justification to attack Serbs?
If you follow that sentence with "but" then I am sorry but you do condone terrorism.I don't condone acts of terrorism, but
We are talking about murdering people you disagree with. If you think someone should be sued for defamation, or that defamation laws should be broadened we would be talking about reprimanding people with small fines or perhaps even a short stint in jail, administered through a free and open court.people have to be smart enough when to say what they want "free speech", and when to zip it. Some people are more sensitive than others
The key difference is that whomever you have insulted didn't care enough to get back at you. Depending who you said it to, that person may have joined in and giggled with you if you'r insults were hanging out with the guys and everyone is goofing on each other for fun.We are talking about murdering people who stray into offense. I have offended lots of people in my day
.
Tu es Pat Buchanan ? There is a fountain of right wing hatred and intolerance ..Patrick Buchanan is my go-to main-man!:
Again, you are condoning terrorism.The key difference is that whomever you have insulted didn't care enough to get back at you. Depending who you said it to, that person may have joined in and giggled with you if you'r insults were hanging out with the guys and everyone is goofing on each other for fun.
The world is full of people who react hard and fast, except the proportion of them is tiny vs. the 99% crowd who won't do anything. So to antagonize people hoping they don't do anything is stupid because some groups of people seem to react harder and faster than other groups. As I said before, I highly doubt any western media would have the balls to do their satire cartoons in the local paper if their office was in that region of the world where there is seemingly endless riots. But from the safety of France, they probably thought otherwise. The paper already has a history of minor retaliation, so it's not like this came out of nowhere and the assailants randomly chose a business to shoot up.
Act like an ass, get treated like an ass.
It's no different than walking down the street and telling everyone who passes you they are an asshole. Freedom of speech right? I guess so. Technically, it's just words. A one second sound bite that literally disappears into thin air. But don't be surprised if someone yells back and punches you in the face. That's the way the world works.
You seem to be hung up on provocation and that is not what the outrage is about. Twelve people - some in the wrong place at the wrong time - were massacred simply because these terrorists wanted to send a strong message of fear to anyone that does not agree with their warped view. What next - you stop your daughters from going to school so they don't get shot ? Either you stand up for your principles or you cower in fear. Je suis Charlie is showing that you have no fear from these pricks. I would like to buy a paper just to spit in the terrorists eye and show that they have failed miserably.It's no different than walking down the street and telling everyone who passes you they are an asshole. Freedom of speech right? I guess so. Technically, it's just words. A one second sound bite that literally disappears into thin air. But don't be surprised if someone yells back and punches you in the face. That's the way the world works.
Yes, too many people are cowards in the face of terrorism. On the left it takes the form of appeasement, on the right people give away rights in the name of security. Either is cowardly. "Je suis Charlie" is the only response that stands against tyranny.You seem to be hung up on provocation and that is not what the outrage is about. Twelve people - some in the wrong place at the wrong time - were massacred simply because these terrorists wanted to send a strong message of fear to anyone that does not agree with their warped view. What next - you stop your daughters from going to school so they don't get shot ? Either you stand up for your principles or you cower in fear. Je suis Charlie is showing that you have no fear from these pricks. I would like to buy a paper just to spit in the terrorists eye and show that they have failed miserably.
With all due respect, I think Occasionally has a pretty good interpretation of the situation - much better than most folks, IMO.You seem to be hung up on provocation and that is not what the outrage is about. Twelve people - some in the wrong place at the wrong time - were massacred simply because these terrorists wanted to send a strong message of fear to anyone that does not agree with their warped view. What next - you stop your daughters from going to school so they don't get shot ? Either you stand up for your principles or you cower in fear. Je suis Charlie is showing that you have no fear from these pricks. I would like to buy a paper just to spit in the terrorists eye and show that they have failed miserably.
I don't agree with often,...but well put here Fuj.The editors of Charlie Hedbo were very deliberate and provocative in their actions: and they had every right to be. This is a democracy. We accept that some people will publish things that offend us, and that they will do so deliberately and provocatively.
Seth also previously tried to justify the Taliban with some nonsense that they were just horribly misunderstood and that if we all only learned about "pashtunwali" we would think their support for Al Qaeda was ok. Sorry Seth, it was not ok. And it is not ok to go about murdering people who offend you, even if their actions were deliberate and provocative.
Islamists do not get a pass just because they have a fucked up ideology that espouses violence -- we will not appease them, even if it means fighting for what we believe. I am not a coward. I would rather be a little less secure, than live in a society where people are prevented from saying something that might offend somebody. Lots of people say things that offend me -- I find the Southern Baptists very offensive and their anti-gay tirades absolutely outrageous, but I am not about to go murder them. I find that my blood boils half the time I read one of Heather Mallick's columns in the Toronto Star, but that doesn't mean I think she should be killed. I am outright disgusted by the pro-terrorist nonsense that groggy, gryfin, and nottyboi post over in the politics forum, but I don't believe they should be shot for it. In fact, I found the Charlie Hedbo stuff offensive too -- but I would put the most offensive shit ever on a t-shirt and parade down the street before I give up the freedoms that entitle people to publish it.
If you don't believe in the freedoms that our society is based on then perhaps you can make your home in one of those third world authoritarian shitholes where a life isn't worth a damn and nobody is entitled to speak their mind.
For those not familiar with the root of the disagreement between Fuji and myself, heres some honest background:The editors of Charlie Hedbo were very deliberate and provocative in their actions: and they had every right to be. This is a democracy. We accept that some people will publish things that offend us, and that they will do so deliberately and provocatively.
Seth also previously tried to justify the Taliban with some nonsense that they were just horribly misunderstood and that if we all only learned about "pashtunwali" we would think their support for Al Qaeda was ok. Sorry Seth, it was not ok. And it is not ok to go about murdering people who offend you, even if their actions were deliberate and provocative.
Islamists do not get a pass just because they have a fucked up ideology that espouses violence -- we will not appease them, even if it means fighting for what we believe. I am not a coward. I would rather be a little less secure, than live in a society where people are prevented from saying something that might offend somebody. Lots of people say things that offend me -- I find the Southern Baptists very offensive and their anti-gay tirades absolutely outrageous, but I am not about to go murder them. I find that my blood boils half the time I read one of Heather Mallick's columns in the Toronto Star, but that doesn't mean I think she should be killed. I am outright disgusted by the pro-terrorist nonsense that groggy, gryfin, and nottyboi post over in the politics forum, but I don't believe they should be shot for it. In fact, I found the Charlie Hedbo stuff offensive too -- but I would put the most offensive shit ever on a t-shirt and parade down the street before I give up the freedoms that entitle people to publish it.
If you don't believe in the freedoms that our society is based on then perhaps you can make your home in one of those third world authoritarian shitholes where a life isn't worth a damn and nobody is entitled to speak their mind.
No disrespect to you, FAST, but it seems theres two very narrow minded individuals & possible dickheads - one guy wont respect the other guys beliefs because he doesn;t respect my beliefs. Hummmm, sounds like a vicious circle. If only one of these guys had the courage and compassion to take some initiative to try to see it from the other guys perspective, rather than just spout piss and vinegar. Are you going to be that guy, or are you content just to continue along that same circle. Hint for you, most guys do NOT have that courage & compassion, even though they wont accept or admit it. But, I think you are the exception to that, FAST. Dont let me down, buddy!I don't agree with often,...but well put here Fuj.
There is an article in the Star today, the dick head editor actually says, no one should commit blasphemy,....what a bunch of crap,...from a very narrow minded individual,... who some how rated half a page in the a large news paper.
He goes on to say that I should respect his beliefs,....but he fails to respect mine.
How the hell does he feel he can judge what I say, simply because of his religious beliefs,...utter BULL SHIT, and only supports the radical.
FAST