The Student Room Group

Topless protesters disrupt Muslim conference, Paris

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Synchyst
They would have been shot which i fully support :smile:


That would be messy. Besides I heard the good old prophet enjoys it when (pigs be upon him) :wink:
W
Original post by Errm336
I didn't say they should.



I'd take the same line with any heterosexual couple and that is, keep it within your own home.


Why should they? Why don't you stay at home so you do not excpose yourself to being offended? After all, you seem to be the one with the problem and are in the western minority.

Enlightened secular liberalism has moved inclusion and tolerance into the 21st century. Imported Islam is attempting to erode these advances back 1200 years.
Original post by Synchyst
I would have decapitated the pair of them for being topless. Feminist are incredibly naive and hypocritical.

You do realise comments like these put you on the security services radar for potential extremist behaviour?
Original post by Illiberal Liberal
That's a red herring. I have already made my point.


Which contributed nothing to the thread so we thank you for trying to increase your post count.
Original post by Lady Comstock
You can't use it for a 'considered desire for revenge', which the Charlie killers were clearly acting under.


Your time would be better off researching what that defence entails and how it relates to Charlie instead of hastily spewing forth assumptions...
Original post by Lady Comstock
Can you elaborate on this distinction? What do you mean by the 'uttering of a state'?


X states xxxxxx.
Original post by HucktheForde
That's true. Freedom of speech is not absolute. But it definitely covers the right to satire and to be free from violent consequences.


No it doesn't which is my point.

Initiating an action under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" does not negate the fact that someone may want to cause you harm.

Initiating an action under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" does not absolve you for any consequences that may occur, violent or otherwise.

Initiating an action under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" does not liberate you from the responsibility and accountability of our actions.

Your pathetic ego being hurt is not an acceptable reason to react violently. People's feelings get hurt all the time.


I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that the "victims" are not entirely blameless.
Original post by uberteknik
Why should they? Why don't you stay at home so you do not excpose yourself to being offended? After all, you seem to be the one with the problem and are in the western minority.


Well then we would all be recluses which I'm sure you agree with me, is not the type of society you and I want to live in.

Enlightened secular liberalism has moved inclusion and tolerance into the 21st century. Imported Islam is attempting to erode these advances back 1200 years.


Asking people to show their affection for each other in a private place means I am not an "Enlightened secular liberal"?
Ah I see Errm is contributing to the thread with this usual tosh

Don't bother replying to him folks he'll be banned soon

But he is a good example of why some 'muslims' just don't get it and sadly it looks like they never will
Original post by BaconandSauce
Ah I see Errm is contributing to the thread with this usual tosh

Don't bother replying to him folks he'll be banned soon

But he is a good example of why some 'muslims' just don't get it and sadly it looks like they never will


Yes, this poster relies on the other participant to be banned from exercising his Freedom of Speech so he can crow "victory".

Ironic in a discussion about Freedom of Speech, to say the least. :wink:
Original post by Errm336
Yes, this poster relies on the other participant to be banned from exercising his Freedom of Speech so he can crow "victory".

Ironic in a discussion about Freedom of Speech, to say the least. :wink:


No this poster simply follows the rules of the forum

But hardly ironic you are banned given your acceptance of the use of violence against people who 'offend' you

But do remember this is a civilised forum

Such a sad person you are to have to multii account and troll a student forum. I wonder as god hasn't filled your life what it is is missing to make you behave in such a sad way.
Original post by M0nkey Thunder
Having a debate


How do you know it was a 'debate'

and if it was a debate can you tell me who was on the 'No it's not OK to beat your wife you savage' side?
Original post by Errm336
You're disgracing the memory of those killed by the Charlie Hebdo executioners.

N'êtes-vous pas Charlie?


Tbh I think that publication is vile. But no one deserved to die.
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
Good! The conference and the way they acted was EXACTLY why this protest NEEDED to happen. I salute FEMEN for standing up to what I believe are REAL issues. Not just the "free the nipple campaign" and the western ideas of feminism. We do need feminism in the west but it seemed like no one was brave enough to actually openly take a stand on middle east-religion etc in this way.

They caused outrage, that was the point! I don't understand why people don't seem to understand that.

Also Beating them and calling them whores? disgusting vile behaviour.


The behaviour of these feminists was disgusting, although no one should be surprised. It's typical from them.
Original post by BaconandSauce
No this poster simply follows the rules of the forum

But hardly ironic you are banned given your acceptance of the use of violence against people who 'offend' you

But do remember this is a civilised forum

Such a sad person you are to have to multii account and troll a student forum. I wonder as god hasn't filled your life what it is is missing to make you behave in such a sad way.


The preacher does not do as he has preached. :wink:
Original post by TheonlyMrsHolmes
The fact that children were there, listening to a wife beating conference makes me feel sick.


You don't think children should know whether or not it is ok to beat a wife?
Original post by Fango_Jett
No. They have their rights to freedom of speech sure, but that doesn't make it acceptable by any stretch.

You shouldn't need a discussion as to whether wife-beating is OK.

Any person with a shred of decency should be able to understand why beating someone else is wrong.


If that's true then why has beating only become unfashionable in the last 100 years or so? Seems cultural to me.
Original post by Errm336
No it doesn't which is my point.

Initiating an action under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" does not negate the fact that someone may want to cause you harm.

Initiating an action under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" does not absolve you for any consequences that may occur, violent or otherwise.

Initiating an action under the pretext of "Freedom of Speech" does not liberate you from the responsibility and accountability of our actions.



I'm not saying anything of the sort. What I'm saying is that the "victims" are not entirely blameless.


Oh **** yes it is. you want to talk about consequences? Do you know what are the consequences of being in Europe? Its to accept our freedom of speech.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Errm336
The preacher does not do as he has preached. :wink:


I've never been banned from this site

are you so sad trolling a student forum is the highlight of your day
Original post by HucktheForde
Oh **** yes it is. you want to talk about consequences? Do you know what are the consequences of being in Europe? Its to accept our freedom of speech.

Posted from TSR Mobile


Quite

It seems the rues simply do not apply to some of the worshipers of Mohammed

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you