Deadly gun attack in Paris: Global reactions & discussion
Scroll to see replies
Original post by young_guns
It was, and it was one that was in many ways designed to cut through the bull**** and allow us to see the stark differences in values between one side and the other.
The events of the past few days have underlined what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying for years, what Theo van Gogh was murdered for, and what the Jyllands-Posten was telling us way back in 2006; that is, a large number of Muslims, hundreds of millions, believe that they are justified in murdering someone simply on the basis of what they think and what they say.
Insofar as their cartoons were designed to illustrate this situation, they were successful.
The events of the past few days have underlined what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying for years, what Theo van Gogh was murdered for, and what the Jyllands-Posten was telling us way back in 2006; that is, a large number of Muslims, hundreds of millions, believe that they are justified in murdering someone simply on the basis of what they think and what they say.
Insofar as their cartoons were designed to illustrate this situation, they were successful.
But you are not justified in yelling "fire" in a packed building in order to demonstrate that it has inadequate crowd control procedures.
Original post by nulli tertius
But you are not justified in yelling "fire" in a packed building in order to demonstrate that it has inadequate crowd control procedures.
The crucial distinction being that yelling fire in a packed building is a falsehood, an assertion that projects a false reality of danger leading to physical risk. It's a misrepresentation of the physical world designed to elicit a false perception of danger that leads to panic and actual danger.
Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad does no such thing, it is an entirely abstract and non-physical interpretation of the religious beliefs of another; the person exercising the free expression in that case is not the one causing the physical danger. The murderers decision to attack is a novus actus interveniens
Surely as a legally-minded person, you would accept that it is the terrorists decisions that are the cause of the violence, morally and legally, not the cartoonists free expression
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
It was, and it was one that was in many ways designed to cut through the bull**** and allow us to see the stark differences in values between one side and the other.
The events of the past few days have underlined what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying for years, what Theo van Gogh was murdered for, and what the Jyllands-Posten was telling us way back in 2006; that is, a large number of Muslims, hundreds of millions, believe that they are justified in murdering someone simply on the basis of what they think and what they say.
Insofar as their cartoons were designed to illustrate this situation, they were successful.
The events of the past few days have underlined what Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been saying for years, what Theo van Gogh was murdered for, and what the Jyllands-Posten was telling us way back in 2006; that is, a large number of Muslims, hundreds of millions, believe that they are justified in murdering someone simply on the basis of what they think and what they say.
Insofar as their cartoons were designed to illustrate this situation, they were successful.
You just said hundreds of millions muslims would kill over a cartoon. WTF are you on.
Original post by young_guns
The crucial distinction being that yelling fire in a packed building is a falsehood, an assertion that projects a false reality of danger leading to physical risk. It's a misrepresentation of the physical world designed to elicit a false perception of danger that leads to panic and actual danger.
Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad does no such thing, it is an entirely abstract and non-physical interpretation of the religious beliefs of another; the person exercising the free expression in that case is not the one causing the physical danger. The murderers decision to attack is a novus actus interveniens
Surely as a legally-minded person, you would accept that it is the terrorists decisions that are the cause of the violence, morally and legally, not the cartoonists free expression
Drawing a cartoon of Muhammad does no such thing, it is an entirely abstract and non-physical interpretation of the religious beliefs of another; the person exercising the free expression in that case is not the one causing the physical danger. The murderers decision to attack is a novus actus interveniens
Surely as a legally-minded person, you would accept that it is the terrorists decisions that are the cause of the violence, morally and legally, not the cartoonists free expression
Of course it is the terrorists who cause the violence. To suggest anything else is blaming the victim.
You seem to have taken my previous point as a point about causation, which it wasn't; it was about appropriateness of behaviour.
Original post by nulli tertius
Of course it is the terrorists who cause the violence. To suggest anything else is blaming the victim.
You seem to have taken my previous point as a point about causation, which it wasn't; it was about appropriateness of behaviour.
You seem to have taken my previous point as a point about causation, which it wasn't; it was about appropriateness of behaviour.
But isn't that the whole point viz. free expression? There are things that I might appreciate that you will think are vulgar and disgusting. There are things you might appreciate that I will find objectionable.
For example, I might want to watch a gay porn video that you would never watch in a million years. Whether it's the Mohammed cartoons, my gay porn videos, or a BNP manifesto, it all forms the wonderful panoply of free expression in a modern democracy.
Whether Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were the height of satirical expression or simply vulgar, slightly racist depictions that weren't particularly clever, they are still free expression and they are particularly important given they were free expression as a form of religious critique (whether it was sophisticated or not)
Such free expression is vital to our society, it must be protected whether it's in good taste or no
Original post by young_guns
For example, I might want to watch a gay porn video that you would never watch in a million years.
For example, I might want to watch a gay porn video that you would never watch in a million years.
And if you do, I would rather you did it in the privacy of your own home instead of whilst sitting next to me in the train. If the video is legal, then you have the right to view it in the train, but I would hope that you had the good manners not to do so.
Original post by nulli tertius
And if you do, I would rather you did it in the privacy of your own home instead of whilst sitting next to me in the train. If the video is legal, then you have the right to view it in the train, but I would hope that you had the good manners not to do so.
And what if I published pictures from the video in a magazine for general sale? A magazine that no-one is forced to buy or look at?
Would that then justify my murder? Would anyone be justified making any physical reaction given no-one is forced to look at the publication?
How is it impermissible bad taste to publish something in a journal that no-one except those who have paid to see it would have to look at? You do realise that looking at the images in Charlie Hebdo was a consensual experience given you actually had to pay for and acquire it to see them?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
And what if I published pictures from the video in a magazine for general sale? A magazine that no-one is forced to buy or look at?
Would that then justify my murder?
Would that then justify my murder?
To repeat myself, nothing justifies the murders.
Would anyone be justified making any physical reaction given no-one is forced to look at the publication?
Lets ask the Heinrich Heine question. Would someone be justified in burning the (bought and paid for) magazines?
How is it impermissible bad taste to publish something in a journal that no-one except those who have paid to see it would have to look at? You do realise that looking at the images in Charlie Hebdo was a consensual experience given you actually had to pay for and acquire it to see them?
In fact that doesn't hold here. The offensive cartoons were mostly cover illustrations.
Original post by nulli tertius
Lets ask the Heinrich Heine question. Would someone be justified in burning the (bought and paid for) magazines?
Lets ask the Heinrich Heine question. Would someone be justified in burning the (bought and paid for) magazines?
If they bought it, they can do whatever they like with it. It is their personal property, it is theirs to do with it what they will
In fact that doesn't hold here. The offensive cartoons were mostly cover illustrations.
And what does that signify in your mind? The fact that someone might have seen it and disagreed with it, maybe even found it in poor taste... so what?
Original post by young_guns
And what does that signify in your mind? The fact that someone might have seen it and disagreed with it, maybe even found it in poor taste... so what?
And what does that signify in your mind? The fact that someone might have seen it and disagreed with it, maybe even found it in poor taste... so what?
The problem is that you do not accept that "No man is an island entire of itself". You believe that there there are no social boundaries than those the law imposes. You do not accept the central tenet of the Christian faith -"Love Thy neighbour as Thyself" or as it is often put "Do as You Would be Done By".
Original post by nulli tertius
The problem is that you do not accept that "No man is an island entire of itself". You believe that there there are no social boundaries than those the law imposes.
That is utter nonsense. It is precisely because I believe no man is an island that I have socialist political views, and that I reject the self-absorbed individualism of Christianity that obsesses over one's personal relationship to a non-existent god.
There is a distinction between setting boundaries (of a non-legal and social nature) for one's self, and coercing others to adhere to those same boundaries, and it is one you fail to understand
There is a further distinction still between recognising such boundaries, and believing that because others crossed those non-legal and purely social boundaries, that they deserve to be murdered for it. To be honest. your views on this subject seem to to be confused
You do not accept the central tenet of the Christian faith -"Love Thy neighbour as Thyself" or as it is often put "Do as You Would be Done By".
I'm sorry but that's completely incoherent. Christian doctrine is the doctrine that commands genocide (of the Amalekites), of the inquisition, of a complete abandonment of responsibility for our families and our socities in the here and now ("Take no thought for the morrow", as the New Testament says).
Furthermore, it's precisely because I believe in solidarity with my fellow man, and because of my belief that we only have this one life to live, that I believe we have to make the best of it and do our best to make our world a good place to live and a decent world to pass on to our children.
It is people like you, people who believe in some kind of supernatural totalisator, a godly scorecard, that believe anything is permissible in the here and now, and who can justify anything (no matter how violent, no matter how immoral) in the name of your non-existent sky dictator.
It's because of the belief in god of the Kouachi brothers that they could justify the awful acts they did. You have far more in common with the Kouachi brothers than with a system of genuine morality and ethics, particularly given you appear to be implying the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists did something worthy of violent censure. You may deny it, but every element of your comments screams "They were asking for it"
It is you (theists) who are the amoral ones, you who have abandoned all attachments to real ethics, to any sense of honour and morality. The actions of the Kouachi brothers, the latest in a long line of religious atrocities, speaks to that, and your own inability to utterly reject their actions speaks to the link between their theism and yours
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
That is utter nonsense. It is precisely because I believe no man is an island that I have socialist political views, and that I reject the self-absorbed individualism of Christianity that obsesses over one's personal relationship to a non-existent god.
There is a distinction between setting boundaries (of a non-legal and social nature) for one's self, and coercing others to adhere to those same boundaries, and it is one you fail to understand
There is a distinction between setting boundaries (of a non-legal and social nature) for one's self, and coercing others to adhere to those same boundaries, and it is one you fail to understand
A boundary set for oneself, isn't a boundary. It is doing what one damn well pleases.
There is a further distinction still between recognising such boundaries, and believing that because others crossed those non-legal and purely social boundaries, that they deserve to be murdered for it. To be honest. your views on this subject seem to to be confused
How many more times do I have to say that nothing justofies these murders.
I'm sorry but that's completely incoherent. Christian doctrine is the doctrine that commands genocide (of the Amalekites), of the inquisition, of a complete abandonment of responsibility for our families and our socities in the here and now ("Take no thought for the morrow", as the New Testament says).
Furthermore, it's precisely because I believe in solidarity with my fellow man, and because of my belief that we only have this one life to live, that I believe we have to make the best of it and do our best to make our world a good place to live and a decent world to pass on to our children.
It is people like you, people who believe in some kind of supernatural totalisator, a godly scorecard, that believe anything is permissible in the here and now, and who can justify anything (no matter how violent, no matter how immoral) in the name of your non-existent sky dictator.
It's because of the belief in god of the Kouachi brothers that they could justify the awful acts they did. You have far more in common with the Kouachi brothers than I, particularly given you appear to be implying the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists did something unacceptable or worthy of censure.
It is you (theists) who are the amoral ones, you who have abandoned all attachments to real ethics, to any sense of honour and morality.
Furthermore, it's precisely because I believe in solidarity with my fellow man, and because of my belief that we only have this one life to live, that I believe we have to make the best of it and do our best to make our world a good place to live and a decent world to pass on to our children.
It is people like you, people who believe in some kind of supernatural totalisator, a godly scorecard, that believe anything is permissible in the here and now, and who can justify anything (no matter how violent, no matter how immoral) in the name of your non-existent sky dictator.
It's because of the belief in god of the Kouachi brothers that they could justify the awful acts they did. You have far more in common with the Kouachi brothers than I, particularly given you appear to be implying the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists did something unacceptable or worthy of censure.
It is you (theists) who are the amoral ones, you who have abandoned all attachments to real ethics, to any sense of honour and morality.
That is rubbish and frankly you know that this is a travesty.
Original post by nulli tertius
A boundary set for oneself, isn't a boundary. It is doing what one damn well pleases.
And Charlie Hebdo violating your "boundaries" makes you angry, doesn't it?
How many more times do I have to say that nothing justofies these murders.
And yet, you don't seem to be able to refrain from continually implying Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves
That is rubbish and frankly you know that this is a travesty
Actually, it's pretty good stuff and I leave it to good judgment of those who come after us to come to take a view on it. I'm perfectly happy with it. Christianity is immoral, both in actions and in doctrine. Your claim to adhere to the golden rule is a hypocritical pose given the very clear, immoral, millenarian doctrines of your religion.
And it's a joke given society has only become more tolerant, safer, more sophisticated, as we jettison the doctrines of Christianity from public life
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
And Charlie Hebdo violating your "boundaries" makes you angry, doesn't it?
No, because I was barely conscious of their existence. If I had been, disgusted would have better summed up my view.
And yet, you don't seem to be able to refrain from continually implying Charlie Hebdo brought it on themselves
No I haven't, and they didn't.
Original post by 6Jesus6Christ6
Well I appreciate that there may be some artistic pleasure derived from drawing cartoons. My point is that to engage in an act that, while objectively, isn't wrong (drawing cartoons), to do so on the basis that you are legally protected to offend someone, or a group, is unproductive behaviour.
It puts bread on the table.
Maybe you'd understand it better if you actually need to work to stay alive and provide for your family.
Apparently, terrorist n°3 also shot a jogger Wednesday (same bullets), who's still between life and death.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
That is utter nonsense. It is precisely because I believe no man is an island that I have socialist political views, and that I reject the self-absorbed individualism of Christianity that obsesses over one's personal relationship to a non-existent god.
There is a distinction between setting boundaries (of a non-legal and social nature) for one's self, and coercing others to adhere to those same boundaries, and it is one you fail to understand
There is a further distinction still between recognising such boundaries, and believing that because others crossed those non-legal and purely social boundaries, that they deserve to be murdered for it. To be honest. your views on this subject seem to to be confused
I'm sorry but that's completely incoherent. Christian doctrine is the doctrine that commands genocide (of the Amalekites), of the inquisition, of a complete abandonment of responsibility for our families and our socities in the here and now ("Take no thought for the morrow", as the New Testament says).
Furthermore, it's precisely because I believe in solidarity with my fellow man, and because of my belief that we only have this one life to live, that I believe we have to make the best of it and do our best to make our world a good place to live and a decent world to pass on to our children.
It is people like you, people who believe in some kind of supernatural totalisator, a godly scorecard, that believe anything is permissible in the here and now, and who can justify anything (no matter how violent, no matter how immoral) in the name of your non-existent sky dictator.
It's because of the belief in god of the Kouachi brothers that they could justify the awful acts they did. You have far more in common with the Kouachi brothers than with a system of genuine morality and ethics, particularly given you appear to be implying the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists did something worthy of violent censure. You may deny it, but every element of your comments screams "They were asking for it"
It is you (theists) who are the amoral ones, you who have abandoned all attachments to real ethics, to any sense of honour and morality. The actions of the Kouachi brothers, the latest in a long line of religious atrocities, speaks to that, and your own inability to utterly reject their actions speaks to the link between their theism and yours
There is a distinction between setting boundaries (of a non-legal and social nature) for one's self, and coercing others to adhere to those same boundaries, and it is one you fail to understand
There is a further distinction still between recognising such boundaries, and believing that because others crossed those non-legal and purely social boundaries, that they deserve to be murdered for it. To be honest. your views on this subject seem to to be confused
I'm sorry but that's completely incoherent. Christian doctrine is the doctrine that commands genocide (of the Amalekites), of the inquisition, of a complete abandonment of responsibility for our families and our socities in the here and now ("Take no thought for the morrow", as the New Testament says).
Furthermore, it's precisely because I believe in solidarity with my fellow man, and because of my belief that we only have this one life to live, that I believe we have to make the best of it and do our best to make our world a good place to live and a decent world to pass on to our children.
It is people like you, people who believe in some kind of supernatural totalisator, a godly scorecard, that believe anything is permissible in the here and now, and who can justify anything (no matter how violent, no matter how immoral) in the name of your non-existent sky dictator.
It's because of the belief in god of the Kouachi brothers that they could justify the awful acts they did. You have far more in common with the Kouachi brothers than with a system of genuine morality and ethics, particularly given you appear to be implying the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists did something worthy of violent censure. You may deny it, but every element of your comments screams "They were asking for it"
It is you (theists) who are the amoral ones, you who have abandoned all attachments to real ethics, to any sense of honour and morality. The actions of the Kouachi brothers, the latest in a long line of religious atrocities, speaks to that, and your own inability to utterly reject their actions speaks to the link between their theism and yours
as a Christian i am not offended... but puzzled about the shallowness of your thoughts.
Please post the mysterious doctrines about the Amalekites which i am supposed to espouse. Maybe i was away that day.
Original post by Jesuisunpoulet
Most of people in France , hate Marine Le Pen and Le Front national. It's not like in the UK
I thought the FN was the second most popular party in France?
As a reaction to the incident in Paris, MI5 have requested to keep tabs on criminals by being able to listen to digital phone calls. However the incident in Paris opposed to freedom, yet if MI5 had this power to listen to conversations, would this not also be opposed to freedom and the ability to express ones ideas.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by R.K.X.T.
would this not also be opposed to freedom and the ability to express ones ideas.
Well, it wouldn't prevent anyone from expressing their ideas, would it?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Teenager given 2 year youth sentence for killing an 82 year old man.
- Units help
- Is travel worth it any more??
- SN1 and SN2 reactions (chemistry)
- Is Sciencespo Reims worth it?
- HEC MSc in Marketing vs LSE GMiM - confused which to choose
- HEC MSc in Marketing vs. LSE GMiM - confused which to choose
- AQA A-level English Literature & Language Paper 1 (7707/1) - 24 May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Politics Examples
- Make it More Maths Exams-ey !!
- USA bombing Syria
- biology q?
- English language p1 q5
- De Montfort vs Manchester metropolitan
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B (9PL0 3B) -16th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- What's your favourite theme song/tune for a show?
- Is Turkey safe to visit?
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- EMF from cellphones causes high blood pressure: study
- GCSE Year 10 - Speaking & Listening Examination
Latest
Posted 3 minutes ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 6 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 24 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 39 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 50 minutes ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 50 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 52 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 53 minutes ago
narrowly missing offer conditionsLast reply 58 minutes ago
St dominics, henrietta barnett, RMS, parmiters or girls grammar??Last reply 59 minutes ago
2024 entry A100 / A101 Medicine fastest and slowest offer sendersMedicine
857
Last reply 1 hour ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 52 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 52 minutes ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
