Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    The word islamophobia is thrown around a lot these days..
    It's an ingenious byword designed to equate criticism of Islam to racial prejudice. It's done wonders for terrorists and extremists worldwide.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellholathere)
    No, i don't want the representation of Charlie. By doing this we're making a righteous human rights figure like mlk or something. I am a European citizen that values free speech and religion and expression, I just don't want to be backed by the representation of someone who mocks beliefs.
    You realise that mockery and criticism of beliefs is absolutely key to free expression, yes?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    btw guys this is absolutely perfect for my epq so thanks
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    It's an ingenious byword designed to equate criticism of Islam to racial prejudice. It's done wonders for terrorists and extremists worldwide.
    To be honest the word doesn't even make sense to me. Most people aren't afraid of islam, they just don't like it or its teachings.

    And considering everything going on in the past 20 years or so I wouldn't say it's irrational to dislike it :confused:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asurat)
    I personally draw the line at insulting the religious dogma of about 5 million of your countrymen (correct me if I'm wrong).
    You are getting into very dangerous territory by measuring such a thing by the number of people who purport to be offended. Millions of indoctrinated North Koreans are probably offended by insults against Kim Jong-un, do you think those numbers make that offence more valid?

    Religious beliefs are fallible ideology which should be open to satire, mockery and criticism in an open society. Satire is often the most effective attack against something which is considered perfect, beyond reproach and which dominates a group of people - see satire against absolute monarchs in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.

    I will defend the right of others to attack things that are subjective without loss of life, but no further.
    Ah, so if maniacs decide to respond to subjective offence with violence, you no longer defend the right to engage in such subjective offence? So if the far-right is offended by the Qur'an and decides to attack people, that's where you refrain from defending the right of the Qur'an to be published?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellholathere)
    btw guys this is absolutely perfect for my epq so thanks
    You're welcome :yy:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeavyTeddy)
    Charlie Hebdo was a disgusting human being, to put it mildly, but still I don't support the killing of another just because they offended you. My issue with this entire situation is that the media are purporting this as something intrinsic in islamic culture; that is, that Muslims think it's acceptable to respond in such a way to mockery. Honestly, I disagree with that idea completely. I think we should categorize and understand the behaviour and motivation of the gunmen as exactly what it is, a horrible, irrational but completely understandable psychological (and human) response. When you mock something that holds sentimental value to someone, they become angry, and sadly some of them become violent. That sentimentality isn't restricted to religion nevermind exclusively to Islam or Muslims.

    I dunno, just my 2p.
    Lmao, Charlie Hebdo isn't a person
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by amenahussein)
    Nobody supports his killing, at all. But we all agree he was a foul human-being


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Na. I think you are pretty foul.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    To be honest the word doesn't even make sense to me. Most people aren't afraid of islam, they just don't like it or its teachings.

    And considering everything going on in the past 20 years or so I wouldn't say it's irrational to dislike it :confused:
    There are many good reasons to fear Islam (look at Iran, Pakistan, etc. for its practical application).

    You're completely right about it not being irrational to dislike it. For the religious to win the war against civilisation they first need to monopolise and destroy education. 'Islamophobia' is a genius way of moving towards that aim. People don't question it; they're too scared to.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    I don't know about the first cartoon, but second cartoon is only appears racist when taken out of context. It's satire.
    What was its context exactly?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    "I personally draw the line at insulting the religious dogma of about 5 million of your countrymen (correct me if I'm wrong)."

    Why draw such an arbitrary line?
    IMO publishing caustic cartoons about religion can be divisive and in a country which isn't well-known for it's religious tolerance, also dangerous for members of that religion. More specifically, I draw the line at religion because mocking (not criticizing, mocking) something that is intrinsic to somebody's beliefs is at the height of disrespect.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheWaffle)
    What was its context exactly?
    I believe the leader of an extremist right-wing party called "Rassemblement bleu Marine" called Taubira (depicted in the cartoon, and is the French Minister of Justice) a monkey.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asurat)
    IMO publishing caustic cartoons about religion can be divisive and in a country which isn't well-known for it's religious tolerance, also dangerous for members of that religion. More specifically, I draw the line at religion because mocking (not criticizing, mocking) something that is intrinsic to somebody's beliefs is at the height of disrespect.
    Yes, it can indeed be divisive. But so what? Cartoons don't cause violence; beliefs rooted in 6th century desert myths do.

    Mockery of religion is essential, though. Totalitarian religion seeks to dominate others by appealing to divine supremacy. If you can mock religion by taking its core texts and ruthlessly satirising its flaws and inconsistencies, you completely undermine the notion of them being divinely warranted. Mockery of religion is utterly key.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    There are many good reasons to fear Islam (look at Iran, Pakistan, etc. for its practical application).

    You're completely right about it not being irrational to dislike it. For the religious to win the war against civilisation they first need to monopolise and destroy education. 'Islamophobia' is a genius way of moving towards that aim. People don't question it; they're too scared to.
    Very good point about the practical application. The last 50 years in those countries has not helped its case at all.

    To be honest I think it's as ridiculous as all these different sexual labels made by tumblr.

    I do think that eventually, a stand will be made
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Je suis Charlie because I stand up for freedom of speech and expression in a Western democracy. However, we all have different views, it's absurd to expect everyone to stand up for that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBBQ)
    Very good point about the practical application. The last 50 years in those countries has not helped its case at all.

    To be honest I think it's as ridiculous as all these different sexual labels made by tumblr.

    I do think that eventually, a stand will be made
    I really hope so. This nonsense has to be resisted; it's a civilisational battle, no less.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Je suis Charlie because I stand up for freedom of speech and expression in a Western democracy. However, we all have different views, it's absurd to expect everyone to stand up for that.
    Is it? That's precisely *why* everyone should stand up for that. The thing that binds us together should be to accept that people can have and express whatever views they please (within the constraints of laws on harassment, etc.).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    Is it? That's precisely *why* everyone should stand up for that. The thing that binds us together should be to accept that people can have and express whatever views they please (within the constraints of laws on harassment, etc.).
    In an ideal world yes, but to expect everyone to agree with it is unrealistic, especially those who grow up in the West but are brought up in conservative, intensely religious households.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    You are getting into very dangerous territory by measuring such a thing by the number of people who purport to be offended. Millions of indoctrinated North Koreans are probably offended by insults against Kim Jong-un, do you think those numbers make that offence more valid?

    Religious beliefs are fallible ideology which should be open to satire, mockery and criticism in an open society. Satire is often the most effective attack against something which is considered perfect, beyond reproach and which dominates a group of people - see satire against absolute monarchs in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.



    Ah, so if maniacs decide to respond to subjective offence with violence, you no longer defend the right to engage in such subjective offence? So if the far-right is offended by the Qur'an and decides to attack people, that's where you refrain from defending the right of the Qur'an to be published?
    I'm not arguing that the size of the population means that they shouldn't be offended and that smaller groups can fend for themselves, I used the stat because I think that publishing something which insults 5 million of your countrymen for a common reason is wrong. Do you think that caricaturing the prophet Mohammad just because you can, whilst also offending millions of people is a good thing to do? Personally I wouldn't argue that I'm a nice person but for me what I think of when I hear the words "freedom of speech" is not that, which is why I would say "Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo".

    I was thinking about putting "violence" instead of death but I thought that I'd make it more specific to Charlie Hebdo. For the record, I don't think that anybody should be threatened with physical violence for what they say. Thanks for pointing it out though because it was worded insensitive of those who have their freedom of speech infringed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asurat)
    I'm not arguing that the size of the population means that they shouldn't be offended and that smaller groups can fend for themselves, I used the stat because I think that publishing something which insults 5 million of your countrymen for a common reason is wrong. Do you think that caricaturing the prophet Mohammad just because you can, whilst also offending millions of people is a good thing to do? Personally I wouldn't argue that I'm a nice person but for me what I think of when I hear the words "freedom of speech" is not that, which is why I would say "Je ne suis pas Charlie Hebdo".

    I was thinking about putting "violence" instead of death but I thought that I'd make it more specific to Charlie Hebdo. For the record, I don't think that anybody should be threatened with physical violence for what they say. Thanks for pointing it out though because it was worded insensitive of those who have their freedom of speech infringed.
    Think about that statement for a moment, then swiftly retract. Absolutely daft.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.