• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Paris

I am a Muslim who believes and prays (I do generally live a very secular life though) and I condemned the attack early in this thread. Not sure why my condemnation is worth anything more than anyone else but it is there if it makes you feel better.

Also I would love to see a debate on the blurry lines on where freedom of speech stops in relation to xenophobia or racism or other sensitive issues. Absolute freedom of speech does not exist, we all agree on that, no where in the world. Because we have the right to be offended. The lines aren't clear to me.

But it is very important for me to say that while I found Charlie Ebdo to a be horrible publication I do not think they deserved to be harmed at all. I think they needed to be debated on the boundaries they pushed with some of their cartoons (I am not even talking about the anti islam ones) but not harmed.
 
there shouldn't be boundaries Luton, that's the point, their work wasn't being forced on people, you had to seek it out

nothing is beyond criticism or parody, and most of all, hypocrisy in power must not be allowed to go unchallenged
 
galeforce said:
there shouldn't be boundaries Luton, that's the point, their work wasn't being forced on people, you had to seek it out

nothing is beyond criticism or parody, and most of all, hypocrisy in power must not be allowed to go unchallenged
Click to expand...

Not saying that Charlie Ebdo were racist, but we live in an era where you cannot compare Black people to zoo animals, which is good and this is an example of things you cannot say in Western society. Other societies are more precious about what offends them.

We need to respect peoples right to be offended as much as we fight for freedom of speech.

And yes you are right about seeking them out, I chose not to look at things I don't like, that is a wonderful liberty!!!
 
DTA said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

And are you sure that you have seen the film? because you recollection of the beginning and the rest of the film is wrong.

Trying to slaughter...??? What film were you watching? Or does saying untruths deliberately, benefit a certain narrative that you want proporgate
Click to expand...

What do you think the Americans were running from? Why do you think they were so scared?

Do you think the Iranians wanted to tickle them?
 
LutonSpurs said:
We need to respect peoples right to be offended as much as we fight for freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

No we don't.

Actually, people can take offence at whatever the hell they want to take offence at - they just shouldn't be allowed to let that offence get in the way of free speech.

This is not offensive, it's just a ****ing cartoon:

dbtmfthi5cyyqjhd8lwb.jpg


People suggesting that a person having relations with other men, living in a time when many men had relations with other men is not offensive. Neither is the condemnation of a man marrying a 6 year old. It is absolutely not a good reason to run about shouting "Admiral Ackbar" and blowing **** up.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Not saying that Charlie Ebdo were racist, but we live in an era where you cannot compare Black people to zoo animals, which is good and this is an example of things you cannot say in Western society. Other societies are more precious about what offends them.

We need to respect peoples right to be offended as much as we fight for freedom of speech.

And yes you are right about seeking them out, I chose not to look at things I don't like, that is a wonderful liberty!!!
Click to expand...

That would be because racisim is illegal (?) (or at least the example you give is?) whereas breaking a specific 'law' within a specific religion is not (at least not in the country the cartoon was published)

You can't hold the outside world to the laws of your faith, ultimately.
 
Hiding in a print works with hostages near to CDG airport. I really hope it's not where Charlie Hebdo is printed as that would suggest it is premeditated rather than part of a panicked escape.

Police helicopter is keeping it's distance, guess because of the apparent rocket launcher they have

It is just unbelievable there are people out there like this
 
scaramanga said:
What do you think the Americans were running from? Why do you think they were so scared?

Do you think the Iranians wanted to tickle them?
Click to expand...

Scared? Can you remind me how many times the US has invaded Iran, and how many times they have invaded Western nations?
 
Anyone else thinking that how this stand off ends could dictate the next big thing? Killing these guys makes them martyrs and heroes to the cause, keeping them alive does no blood justice for those dead, then there is the Islamic nut job reaction to consider or not depending on your view.
 
http://www.glory-glory.co.uk/showthread.php/7266-Paris/page9
scaramanga said:
This is not offensive, it's just a ****ing cartoon:
Click to expand...


Who are we as non-Muslims to declare that these pictures aren't offensive to Muslims? If they are offended by pictures depicting an entity they hold dearest to their hearts in a satirical way, they have every right to be offended no? Just as we have every right to roll our eyes and say, 'come on guys, it's just a ****ing cartoon'.

If you can be bothered, this is an interesting piece. Not one I necessarily agree with fully, but at least it challenges the one-sided party-line that is being thrown about.


http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/20...-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/
 
scaramanga said:
No we don't.

Actually, people can take offence at whatever the hell they want to take offence at - they just shouldn't be allowed to let that offence get in the way of free speech.

This is not offensive, it's just a ****ing cartoon:

dbtmfthi5cyyqjhd8lwb.jpg


People suggesting that a person having relations with other men, living in a time when many men had relations with other men is not offensive. Neither is the condemnation of a man marrying a 6 year old. It is absolutely not a good reason to run about shouting "Admiral Ackbar" and blowing **** up.
Click to expand...

I have at no point suggested understanding the gunmens cause or justified it. I was pushing to a separate debate of what is offensive and what is not.

billyiddo said:
That would be because racisim is illegal (?) (or at least the example you give is?) whereas breaking a specific 'law' within a specific religion is not (at least not in the country the cartoon was published)

You can't hold the outside world to the laws of your faith, ultimately.
Click to expand...

My point is that racism was not illegal or frowned upon a few decades ago and is still common in some places, with time the lines around what is acceptable and what isn't has changed. the debate is on-going and the general mindset is evolving. I do not think the outside world should be held accountable to any faiths laws if they don't want to be. My point is that there could be a better understanding of different cultures and why they find things offensive.

again i re-iterate, I dislike a lot of the cartoons but I choose not to look at them. That is my right to be offended done. And I do believe I have that right.
 
I am sure the drawings were offensive to Muslims granted, there are a number of Islamic views of the western world although not on paper that offend me, but I don't go round wielding a gun and shooting Muslims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back