Shooting reported at Paris magazine Charlie Hebdo

a reply to: queenofswords

A) that is a crappy reason for not calling out the extremists
B) I find the reason to be disingenuous. Some people may be afraid to speak up...but you can bet your bottom dollar that there would be some who would speak out anyway.

I do not believe it is, in it's entirety, a question of fear. I think your first explanation may be the most correct: They (Islamists) are prohibited from speaking out against other Islamists. That is totally effed up. An effed up religion with effed up rules and philosophy.

I sincerely wish that people would stop the yapping about how Islam is a religion of peace. It is rather obvious what it is. THAT is why moderates do not speak up against extremists.

a reply to: bbracken677

My third option, as I've thoroughly explained numerous times now...


Is that they brought other people into their humour...

Why didn't he draw these cartoons & put them on his facebook or Twitter...

Would have had the same publicity, probably more so...


In doing so for the Magazine, in a time where extremists will react extremely to what offends them...
He could only expect two outcomes...

Extremists to ignore it...
Or extremists to react...


Now I know which I think is more likely to happen...

& in his shoes I'd have given that second one some hard thought upon making a decision to involve the whole of Magazines staff...

So do I find him partly responsible...
Hell yes...

Do I condone it...
No...

Do I take responsibility away from those who reacted...
Hell no...

Could this have been avoided...
Yes...



Does rape have anything to do with this...
Absolutely not.

Was it a slanderous attempt to appeal to emotion...
Absolutely yes.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Realtruth
a reply to: neo96

This only treats the symptoms.

Religion always seems to survive those types of attacks.

So what's the alternative ?

Killing all the religious folks ?

Locking them up, and throwing the key away ?

The worlds been there done that already. and always ends up as the new boss is same as the old boss.

When the church,and mosque's ruled the world then it was replaced with the new and 'improved' version called government, and it's 'morality'.

I think freedom from religion all together by empowering oneself, but it appears the majority of the world still needs to live vicariously through authority figures, and play a victim mentality.

Just think if a majority the people, in our world, didn't need religion, government, and rule outside of themselves, then actually thought for themselves.

But then again most religious people don't see themselves as indoctrinated followers.

I truly feel sorry for the people and families that lost loved ones do to religious ignorance.

I'm French, atheist, and utterly shocked.
Would I be from ANY other country, or any religion, I would be shocked all the same.
I'm shocked by this attack, worried also...and shocked by some comments here.
To you guys, to you CharlieSpeirs, I guess I have only one thing to say. Or to quote :

La liberté de tout dire n’a d’ennemis que ceux qui veulent se réserver la liberté de tout faire
Which can be more or less translated to :
The freedom to say everything has for sole enemy those who want the freedom to do anything THEY like.

Jean-Paul Marat.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: bbracken677

My third option, as I've thoroughly explained numerous times now...


Is that they brought other people into their humour...

Why didn't he draw these cartoons & put them on his facebook or Twitter...

Would have had the same publicity, probably more so...


In doing so for the Magazine, in a time where extremists will react extremely to what offends them...
He could only expect two outcomes...

Extremists to ignore it...
Or extremists to react...


Now I know which I think is more likely to happen...

& in his shoes I'd have given that second one some hard thought upon making a decision to involve the whole of Magazines staff...

So do I find him partly responsible...
Hell yes...

Do I condone it...
No...

Do I take responsibility away from those who reacted...
Hell no...

Could this have been avoided...
Yes...



Does rape have anything to do with this...
Absolutely not.

Was it a slanderous attempt to appeal to emotion...
Absolutely yes.

So in as many words, you continue to blame the victims.

Stellar.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Perhaps, but you CAN choose how you react to it. Therein lie the rub. The Jihady wannabees chose to murder because they were offended by the humor, rather than blowing it off as being sick humor by ignorant people as they very well could have done.

When I see, read, watch humor that I find distasteful I do not react by declaring Jihad, putting a price on people's heads and grabbing a gun or a bomb and slaughtering unarmed people.

I write the author off as a distasteful, ignorant idiot.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Jamie1

Because you don't choose the meaning of an intentionally offensive statement...
The one who makes the statement intentionally gives it the meaning.


Your definition is pseudo-psychology at its finest.

That's false.

Nobody else can choose the meaning you give something. The writer of a statement cannot force his or her meaning on the reader of the statement.

Imagine two muslims. Both see the same statement.

One is offended. The other is not.

But the statement is the same.

The difference is the meaning each gave the statement.

Or do you have a different explanation?

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: neo96

Yes...Islam needs to leave the Dark Ages .. very much so.

I find it disquieting at the least, disgusting at the most that main stream Islam does not denounce this crap.

Islam itself is no more in the dark ages than Christianity is, the religion itself does not encourage violence and killing. The problem is the extremist and evil crackpots who have their own interpretations of the religion. Millions and millions of muslims around the world are peace loving people who simply go about their business trying to make a living and take care of their families, just like millions and millions of Christians, Catholics, Buddhists and so on.

And many muslims have openly condemned violence and terror. (A little more press coverage of this would have been good...)

www.whyislam.org...

a reply to: Jamie1

I don't think you understand what intentional means, therefore I see this convo going nowhere slowly.

a reply to: bbracken677

As I would have done, even being Muslim.



But to try and apply that to Extremists is just naive in my opinion.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: bbracken677



Does rape have anything to do with this...
Absolutely not.

Was it a slanderous attempt to appeal to emotion...
Absolutely yes.

IF you cannot see the parallel regarding blaming the victims for the actions of others...then I pity you.

Personally, I think your reply is absolutely disingenuous, you are obviously smart enough to see the parallel and yet choose not to, since it makes my point perfectly.

You say the editor is responsible for the deaths of employees? Okie Dokie...

I guess that makes the designer of provocative clothing responsible for rapes.

a reply to: bbracken677

.....which leads me to think that perhaps we are dealing with mentally ill people.

Religion can breed fanaticism. It brainwashes some people that are prone to suggestion. That's why you have religions that can turn their backs on their own parents, children, siblings, friends, etc. for leaving the religion.

And, that's why you have religions that "suggest" certain things that can cause certain followers to take those suggestions to extremes.

Mental illness, yep, and they don't even realize it. Perhaps de-programming methods could be the answer to dangerous destructive religious fanaticism.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That depends if you wish to call the editor & joker victims...


All the other people are victims, nine of them I think up to now, of their selfishness & idiocy as well as extremist terrorism.




I'm just man enough to admit that, others are taking the route of the righteous indignation that doesn't exist in this case.



Which you're free to do of course.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yeah...so it is also naive to believe that rapists will not respond to provocative clothing?

You are still trying very hard to lay the blame in the wrong place.

You are saying that a magazine of satirical humor should be careful and not offend anyone because: Hey! They may be killed!! Therefor they should not publish offensive humor.

What would a publisher of satirical humor be publishing if they could not offend anyone?

Oh my God! The PC police!

Please, tell me how I should think, while you are at it.

This is such a totally stupid argument... I am done with it.

Perhaps there is no such thing as satire and we do not know the full extent of our actions?

a reply to: th2356

There is a lot of coverage regarding Muslims condemning this attack, here in France, believe me.
And that's a good thing, because there are lots of Muslims here in France, most of them being...normal people. Living their life, going to work every single day, with mundane concerns, good people. Just as any Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic or whatever.
I'm worried about blending thoughts between Muslims, Islam and this attack from extremists, delusional people.

a reply to: bbracken677

You say the editor is responsible for the deaths of employees? Okie Dokie...

Yes because they signed off on this knowing the risk of a cartoon intentionally offending people who may be prone to extremism.
No cartoon, probably no reaction.

I guess that makes the designer of provocative clothing responsible for rapes.

No because rape is nothing to do with what someone wears...
It's a power trip...
No provocative clothing, probably still rape.



I find your comparison to be offensive, and as disingenuous as you make me out to be.

a reply to: Jamie1

Exactly it's how naive people from birth are taught to react.

Religions be it Islam, Christian, Jewish teach their young how to react and treat others due to their specific dogma, hence some react more strongly in a given situation.

But here is where it gets good, you don't have to blame yourself for anything bad you do, because it's all for a higher purpose.

One side see's it as them doing good, while the other religious side sees it as evil.

Never ending madness.

a reply to: bbracken677

Therefor they should not publish offensive humor.

Be honest now...

99.9% of "satirical" work will not cause extremists to terrorise...

They decided to publish that 0.1% that without a doubt, would cause it...


So yes I feel they're partly responsible for their workers deaths.
Not completely, but partly.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

That depends if you wish to call the editor & joker victims...


All the other people are victims, nine of them I think up to now, of their selfishness & idiocy as well as extremist terrorism.




I'm just man enough to admit that, others are taking the route of the righteous indignation that doesn't exist in this case.



Which you're free to do of course.

Nobody in their right mind would blame the victims of this tragedy. They did nothing wrong, the committed no crime. They made crude drawings. Were they distasteful? Absolutely? Worth dying over? Not in the least. Yet somehow you continue to state that the victims are the ones at fault here.

Is a rape victim responsible if she wore revealing clothing?
Is a mugging victim responsible because they appear affluent?

By your logic, they would be. Because they "provoked" the crime.