The Student Room Group

Why I'm not Charlie and never will be

Scroll to see replies

Original post by pocahontas lol
only an atheist or someone being vulgar for argument's sake would call religious standards and principles offensive.


Some South American civilisations (and others) held religious beliefs that meant human beings were sacrificed to their gods in large numbers. Now, I don't know about you but I think that goes well beyond being offensive. Are you really saying that, in your opinion, no religion is capable of being offensive and that, because the people do it in furtherance of their religious beliefs, human sacrifice is acceptable and that people should not speak against it? Because that is the inevitable consequence of your stance. Can you not see that?

Or do you genuinely think human sacrifice in furtherance of religious beliefs is OK?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
Some South American civilisations (and others) held religious beliefs that meant human beings were sacrificed to their gods in large numbers. Now, I don't know about you but I think that goes well beyond being offensive. Are you really saying that, in your opinion, no religion is capable of being offensive and that, because the people do it in furtherance of their religious beliefs, human sacrifice is acceptable and that people should not speak against it? Because that is the inevitable consequence of your stance. Can you not see that?

Or do you genuinely think human sacrifice in furtherance of religious beliefs is OK?


Offensive and human sacrifice?
You people are making me laugh now.

What is your point?

"Are you really saying that" religion (aka "ancient human sacrifice in South America because that's relevant") is deserving of flaming press and satires (that aren't funny) because it is "offensive?"

Also. This will not bait me into a discussion about religion. This is about Hebdo and the sad material sad people find funny.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pocahontas lol
Offensive and human sacrifice?
You people are making me laugh now.W

What is your point?


You said no religious principle or standard can possibly be deemed offensive. I pointed out that human sacrifice has been carried out in the name of religion and I find that offensive. I asked you to clarify whether you think human sacrifice is acceptable if it is for religious purposes.

If not, how could you challenge it if criticism of religions was not permissible? Or would you just let it go?
Original post by Good bloke
You said no religious principle or standard can possibly be deemed offensive. I pointed out that human sacrifice has been carried out in the name of religion and I find that offensive. I asked you to clarify whether you think human sacrifice is acceptable if it is for religious purposes.

If not, how could you challenge it if criticism of religions was not permissible? Or would you just let it go?


Read the post you quoted again.
Original post by pocahontas lol
Offensive and human sacrifice?
You people are making me laugh now.

What is your point?

"Are you really saying that" because religion (aka "ancient human sacrifice in South America because that's relevant") is deserving of flaming press and satires (that aren't funny) because it is "offensive?"

Also. This will not bait me into a discussion about religion. This is about Hebdo and the sad material sad people find funny.


It is about freedom of speech, and your contention that religious principles could never be offensive.
Original post by pocahontas lol
Read the post you quoted again.



Why don't you answer my questions? Is human sacrifice acceptable in a religion?
Original post by Good bloke
It is about freedom of speech, and your contention that religious principles could never be offensive.


Read your second part.
When did I say that?

No seriously. Tell me where I said that. For one I don't use the word never.

And I refuse to be baited into a debate about religion with an atheist, in a discussion about dead cartoonists. Why you mad? :rolleyes:

And you might wanna calm down. I look up at my screen and I have 3 quotes to read from you in the same minute of the same thread. Don't piss me off. I'll leave you to yourself as well in a minute.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pocahontas lol
Read your second part.
When did I say that?

No seriously. Tell me where I said that. For one I don't use the word never.

And I refuse to be baited into a debate about religion with an atheist, in a discussion about dead cartoonists. Why you mad? :rolleyes:

And you might wanna calm down. I look up at my screen and I have 3 quotes to read from you in the same minute of the same thread. Don't piss me off. I'll leave you to yourself as well in a minute.


I quoted you in post 592. You said "only an atheist ... would call religious standards and principles offensive". As I pointed out, human sacrifice has been a religious standard, so the obvious inference is that you would never object to human sacrifice for religious purposes.

Surely you will answer? There is no point you joining the debate if you won't.
Goodbloke:

I'm chalking it up to this:

"Are you really saying that" religion (aka "ancient human sacrifice in South America because that's relevant") is deserving of flaming press and satires (that aren't funny) because it is "offensive?"


Do your best. And have fun. Happy New Year. And good night. We'll see what big boy came up with in the morning.
Original post by Good bloke
Why don't you answer my questions? Is human sacrifice acceptable in a religion?


I wouldn't bother - he/she will just respond with diversionary tactics to avoid actually addressing your logical arguments, or will talk about how angry he/she is getting, and then eventually block you when he/she is called out on their inability to offer a credible counter-argument.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pocahontas lol
Goodbloke:

I'm chalking it up to this:

"Are you really saying that" religion (aka "ancient human sacrifice in South America because that's relevant") is deserving of flaming press and satires (that aren't funny) because it is "offensive?"


Do your best. And have fun. Happy New Year. And good night. We'll see what big boy came up with in the morning.


I can't understand what you are saying though it looks mighty like a determined attempt not to confront the contradiction in your statement.

Clearly you don't accord much respect to the religious beliefs of some great civilisations if you don't think they are relevant.
Original post by Lady Comstock
I wouldn't bother - he/she will just respond with diversionary tactics to avoid actually addressing your logical arguments, or will talk about how angry he/she is getting.


What is even worse, I am not even sure she understands the hole she has dug for herself (and anyone else who claims religions should be immune from criticism).
bump
freedom of speech is freedom of speech
Reply 554
Original post by ESPORTIVA
freedom of speech is freedom of speech


So can I call your mum a fat slut in front of her face and not be smacked in the face for it?
Reply 555
Original post by ReligionIsPoison
What an immature and pointless statement.


Not really. Freedom of speech should be for a rational cause and have some meaning to it. So read my post again and see why I've written it.
No Muslim will ever be charlie.
Original post by K1NG93
No Muslim will ever be charlie.


And yet:

http://www.ibtimes.com/moderate-muslims-use-jesuischarlie-condemn-charlie-hebdo-attack-paris-1775986

Perhaps they are older and wiser than some of the keyboard jihadis here.
Original post by Good bloke
And yet:

http://www.ibtimes.com/moderate-muslims-use-jesuischarlie-condemn-charlie-hebdo-attack-paris-1775986

Perhaps they are older and wiser than some of the keyboard jihadis here.


Keyboard jihadis is a funny way of putting it
Original post by IdeasForLife
The cartoon below is drawn by Charlie Hebdo, the french magazine which recently got attacked by gunmen.

It shows a muslim man using the Quran as (bullets going through it) with the caption "the Quran is **** it doesn't stop bulllets" after the Rabaa massacre in Egypt. Over 1000 Egyptians were killed by their own military whilst peacefully protesting.

This is one of the reasons I am not charlie. I do not make fun of massacres.I am above that. If someone where to make fun of holocaust victims, they would be called quite a few bad names(and rightly so). It shouldn't be any different when people make fun of other atrocities.

Just to add - I do not support the gunmen or anything of the like.

The image is in the spoiler, you may find it offensive, so I've given you the option whether you wish to view it or not.

Spoiler



Shame you've probably been railed on by the 'free speech' crew who think free speech = 'white people get to say what we want regardless of responsibility to not be an overly offensive racist bigot' (ignoring that even France has 'hate speech' laws making that nonsense technically illegal).

The attack in Paris was a heinous crime, but using it to rail on Muslims because of the actions of 4 people is just petty and small-minded. It's no different than being a racist **** to all white people because of the acts of a few skin-heads.

It's unfair and just not mature.


So no I'm not Charlie, I'm someone who gets that our rights come with some responsibilities. Constructive criticism of Islam is fine, hiding behind the free-speech banner to excuse being a xenophobic **** isn't.
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply