Shooting at French Satirical Magazine

Xordium said:
But that is not what you said - you said they were both as bad as each other.

Do you believe that?
Click to expand...

Yes, they're both inciting each other just as badly, except they're going about it in different ways.

The magazine for trying to get a reaction from the shooters, who give a reaction, to which the magazine gives another reaction, to which another reaction will occur.

As I said, both groups of people are just as unpleasant as each other who appear to have little respect for others and hide behind their beliefs to be nasty to people. It's all driven by their need for attention.

It seems in France the way to become a national hero is to insult swathes of people and get killed for it.
 
Last edited:
jamoor said:
Yes, they're both inciting each other just as badly, except they're going about it in different ways.

The magazine for trying to get a reaction from the shooters, who give a reaction, to which the magazine gives another reaction, to which another reaction will occur.

As I said, both groups of people are just as unpleasant as each other who appear to have little respect for others and hide behind their beliefs to be nasty to people. It's all driven by their need for attention.

It seems in France the way to become a national hero is to insult swathes of people and get killed for it.
Click to expand...

You seriously equivalate predmeditated murder and drawing satiral cartoons. How strange.
 
jamoor said:
Yes, they're both inciting each other just as badly, except they're going about it in different ways.

The magazine for trying to get a reaction from the shooters, who give a reaction, to which the magazine gives another reaction, to which another reaction will occur.
Click to expand...

Murdering people vs drawing insulting cartoons? Yeah I can see the moral equivalence right there...
 
jamoor said:
Yes, they're both inciting each other just as badly, except they're going about it in different ways.

The magazine for trying to get a reaction from the shooters, who give a reaction, to which the magazine gives another reaction, to which another reaction will occur.

As I said, both groups of people are just as unpleasant as each other who appear to have little respect for others and hide behind their beliefs to be nasty to people. It's all driven by their need for attention.

It seems in France the way to become a national hero is to insult swathes of people and get killed for it.
Click to expand...
O-M-G-!-:eek:
 
Jono8 said:
Just what?

One has been drawing crude cartoons. The other has been murdering innocent people.
Click to expand...

As I said they're both nasty groups of people that shouldn't deserve anyones time of day.
Neither have respect for other humans.
Both hide behind their beliefs to justify their unpleasantries.

I can't see how anyone can justify insulting peoples beliefs with freedom of speech.
I can't see how anyone can murder people using religion as a defence?

Maybe someone can explain?
 
Last edited:
jamoor said:
I can't see how anyone can justify insulting peoples beliefs with freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Because nothing happens. They can either choose to take offence, or just ignore it.

But then taking offence doesn't mean anything. Ok, so they are offended....so what. Nothing happens :confused:

Murdering on the other hand....
 
jamoor said:
As I said they're both nasty groups of people that shouldn't deserve anyones time of day.
Neither have respect for other humans.
Both hide behind their beliefs to justify their unpleasantries.

I can't see how anyone can justify insulting peoples beliefs with freedom of speech.
I can't see how anyone can murder people using religion as a defence?

Maybe someone can explain?
Click to expand...

If you seriously need someone to explain to why murdering people is worse than potentially insulting them, via the medium of art, you need to have a good long think tbh.
 
jamoor said:
As I said they're both nasty groups of people that shouldn't deserve anyones time of day.
Neither have respect for other humans.
Both hide behind their beliefs to justify their unpleasantries.

I can't see how anyone can justify insulting peoples beliefs with freedom of speech.
I can't see how anyone can murder people using religion as a defence?

Maybe someone can explain?
Click to expand...

Insulting people's beliefs is justifiable because people believe all sorts of crazy things and mockery is very effective at pointing out the flaws in those beliefs.
 
zoomee said:
The pope makes a good point. How would you like it if someone insults your mother or father, or how about your son or daughter?

Sure we wouldnt kill them but none the less even in a court of law you would be seen as being provoked into whatever you said back or did.

Freedom of speech still or provocation? Whilst you may make pointless arguments that God doesnt exist theres no denying that the people charlies lot depict defo exist or existed.
Click to expand...

so maybe we shouldn't mock politicians

I mean how offended must G W Bush's daughters have been when the press relentlessly mocked him, they can't have liked it... surely the press should have been civil and we should have condemned the mockery... in fact given that everyone is related to someone we shouldn't be allowed to mock anyone - everyone is someone's daughter/someone's son... no mockery of any human being?

Tis just silly, why create special exceptions for someone, especially some historical figure who's been dead for centuries.

if someone is head of an ideology etc.. leading/representing a political view, religion etc.. then they're open to mockery and debate, their actions are open to mockery/debate, the ideology they're associated with is open to it
 
Last edited:
Zethor said:
Insulting people's beliefs is justifiable because people believe all sorts of crazy things and mockery is very effective at poiting out the flaws in those beliefs.
Click to expand...

And why do they feel the need to do that, why not just accept it and live in peace? Why do they need to point flaws in someone elses beliefs if its not affecting their lives in any way?

If someone believes that they have to do something ridiculous like run up and down the stairs five times in the morning to bring good luck, why insult them? Does it make you feel big and superior to them in some twisted way?
 
jamoor said:
Yes, they're both inciting each other just as badly, except they're going about it in different ways.

The magazine for trying to get a reaction from the shooters, who give a reaction, to which the magazine gives another reaction, to which another reaction will occur.

As I said, both groups of people are just as unpleasant as each other who appear to have little respect for others and hide behind their beliefs to be nasty to people. It's all driven by their need for attention.

It seems in France the way to become a national hero is to insult swathes of people and get killed for it.
Click to expand...

eh? The magazine wasn't trying to get a reaction from the shooters - it was a low circulation left wing publication, the shooters got wind of it and chose to be offended when instead they could have just ignored it, they wouldn't have ordinarily even read it or heard of it... why should the views/cartoons in a low circulation magazine they don't read have to bother them

the cover after the attack... well that was inevitable, it wasn't particularly offensive but given how retarded some muslims get about even a mere picture of the prophet it is controversial.
 
Xordium said:
Hmm, didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek to such things? Genuine question there but hasn't he just gone against one of the biggest Christian teachings?
Click to expand...

Turn the other cheek.
Perhaps.
He has however stated the reality of a world that isn't 100% Christian.
Annoy someone, a human, enough, and you will get a slapping.

This in no way justifies murder, acts of violence etc, that was his first statement. Which is barely reported, or completely left out. Like everything their is mitigation, and if you poke a rabid bear with a sore paw, it'll swipe at you. Christianity isn't the bear anymore. For the most part anyway. Other religions, maybe more bear like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom