Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    [/B][/B][/I]Of course he clearly provoked it, but that doesn't mean he deserved to be killed. As much as I dislike his cartoons (and the idolisation of him), I still think he should be allowed to do it without fear of reprisal. What you essentially seem to be arguing against is people standing up for things they believe in when it could be dangerous. If people didn't do that, we'd still be living in the dark ages.
    There is a difference of standing up against something that is wrong with the motive of trying to revolutionise the world and making things right AND mocking an entire religion just for the fun of it. Standing up against Islam and criticising it would've been the better thing, which is happening every day by several magazines and newspapers around the world. That's not offending Muslims, it's simply criticising them.

    Muslims respect their prophet way too much and are strictly against drawing pictures of him. Everyone knows that and doing that is simply adding fuel to the fire.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    There is a difference of standing up against something that is wrong with the motive of trying to revolutionise the world and making things right AND mocking an entire religion just for the fun of it.
    I know and whilst I don't think it was just to make fun of it, I definitely agree that people are making his cause a lot more noble than it actually was. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that people should be free to express themselves without fear of violence and it's at least partially commendable that he did it despite the threats against him.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em.d_4)
    Did they deserve to be shot for having potentially offensive unpopular opinions...? No!
    Did they deserve and anticipation negative reaction from some groups? Well yes because that's the entire basis of the magazine. It's aim is to be thought provoking, critical of society and humourous. But of course not everyone shares the same sense of humour or the same values so not everyone will like everything Charlie Hebdo produces. You just have to rise above it. They also target Catholics, various cultural points, politics, homophobia etc. But at no point have any of these groups tried to attack the magazine with violence you just rise above it.
    Again, everyone knows that Muslims themselves would never draw pictures or cartoons of their prophet even in a non-mocking way. So mocking it is the last thing you do. It's similar to the Quran burning nonsense that was happening a few years ago. What was the purpose? Muslims would feel really bad when they drop their Quran on the floor and ask for forgiveness etc. Burning it is again just offending the entire religion.

    Another thing is that Catholics and others don't have (m)any extremists. Muslims do and therefore people need to be more careful about what they say/do to Muslims.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    you don't see muslims disrespecting other peoples religion...

    Charlie hebdo and the like are pathetic again just like the media using controversy to further themselves.***** like behaviour.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No they did not in anyway deserve it.

    Loads of publications have done satire of the prophet mohammad and not been the victims of a massacre.

    At most, publications might expect outcry or condemnation, not a psycho gunning them down.

    And all this talk of "messing with people you can't mess with", there's a name for that, it's called cowardice.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I know and whilst I don't think it was just to make fun of it, I definitely agree that people are making his cause a lot more noble than it actually was. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that people should be free to express themselves without fear of violence and it's at least partially commendable that he did it despite the threats against him.
    That way you should be free to say any abusive language to anyone out there without the fear of being thrown out of the premise or being arrested.

    Freedom of speech has a limit. And when this limit is crossed, things go wrong. Try abusing a police officer or expressing racist views and see it for yourself.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Think you should all have a read of this. Its pretty interesting http://aanirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/...paris.html?m=1

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    Again, everyone knows that Muslims themselves would never draw pictures or cartoons of their prophet even in a non-mocking way. So mocking it is the last thing you do. It's similar to the Quran burning nonsense that was happening a few years ago. What was the purpose? Muslims would feel really bad when they drop their Quran on the floor and ask for forgiveness etc. Burning it is again just offending the entire religion.

    Another thing is that Catholics and others don't have (m)any extremists. Muslims do and therefore people need to be more careful about what they say/do to Muslims.
    Do you not think that saying we need to be careful of the muslims because they have more extremists and therefore censor what we say is 100% letting extremism win?
    These things may offend them on the ground of their religion, but what about the people offended by the theory of evolution? Or people offended by homosexuality or those offended by your choice of clothing? Should we not do those things in case somebody is offended?
    Personally i find homophobia hugely offensive and wrong and yet in the 21st century people are still executed for it, the part of the UK where i live doesn't allow gay men to donate blood, and is pushing for laws allowing medical professionals to not provide treatment to gay people if they aren't happy to...? Can we stop people being homophobic because it offends me? Nope we can't, we can debate with people and educate them to our point of view but we can't impose our views upon them.
    We can not allow muslims to be an untouchable group where we dare not express views, or criticize, or even poke fun (see the way we do at the catholic priests? many catholics find the exceptionally offensive) just in case we offend some mental raving extremist lunatic who's views and actions only have the support of a tiny minority.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nomes24)
    If religious people are allowed to speak about their beliefs, non-religious are allowed to criticise or speak about why they don't agree with those beliefs. Accepting freedom of speech means you have to accept that others may offend you, and that you can do nothing about it. You can't have it both ways- one without the other.

    Sure, the cartoons were potentially insensitive and disrespectful, but they are well within their rights in expressing those views and the violence is not justified in any way.
    So, with that logic of freedom of speech, I should be allowed to go around expressing racist remarks openly without any fears, right? What makes this case different?

    (Original post by umzz)
    Our prophet went through more punishment and torture that you could ever think of and all he done in response was forgive. Islam condemns murder simple as.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What's your point?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    That way you should be free to say any abusive language to anyone out there without the fear of being thrown out of the premise or being arrested.

    Freedom of speech has a limit. And when this limit is crossed, things go wrong. Try abusing a police officer or expressing racist views and see it for yourself.
    I completely agree that you should legally be allowed to say anything you want as long as it isn't a credible threat of violence. That doesn't mean people can't set their own rules for private premises (or websites) but I don't think it should be a legally punishable crime.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em.d_4)
    Do you not think that saying we need to be careful of the muslims because they have more extremists and therefore censor what we say is 100% letting extremism win?
    These things may offend them on the ground of their religion, but what about the people offended by the theory of evolution? Or people offended by homosexuality or those offended by your choice of clothing? Should we not do those things in case somebody is offended?
    Personally i find homophobia hugely offensive and wrong and yet in the 21st century people are still executed for it, the part of the UK where i live doesn't allow gay men to donate blood, and is pushing for laws allowing medical professionals to not provide treatment to gay people if they aren't happy to...? Can we stop people being homophobic because it offends me? Nope we can't, we can debate with people and educate them to our point of view but we can't impose our views upon them.
    We can not allow muslims to be an untouchable group where we dare not express views, or criticize, or even poke fun (see the way we do at the catholic priests? many catholics find the exceptionally offensive) just in case we offend some mental raving extremist lunatic who's views and actions only have the support of a tiny minority.
    I absolutely agree with you. It should be allowed to criticise everything openly and without fear. THEORETICALLY. Is that using your mind? No

    I've given this example before, but does that mean I should stop a gang of potentially violent people crossing a red traffic light at night? Obviously no. I'd rather have them 'win' how you call it than risk getting stabbed or killed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    So, with that logic of freedom of speech, I should be allowed to go around expressing racist remarks openly without any fears, right? What makes this case different?
    No- people can be offended by how you choose to use your freedom of speech, but they can't act on it. Sure they can respond (using their own freedom of speech) to criticise or condemn your remarks, but they can't take actions against you e.g. violence. The point is even if you disagree with what someone is saying- you can't attack or kill them because of it. It would be more productive, anyway, to try and criticise their remarks so they can see the error of their ways (if it is a completely inappropriate or derogatory opinion) and thus stop racism/ Islamophobia altogether. By killing people who insult you, you just give people more reason to believe their insults were true.

    As a matter of disclosure, I personally do not think racism or Islamophobia is acceptable, and also that the terrorists who perpetrated these attacks should not be regarded as true Muslims. Islam doesn't believe in murder or unprovoked violence: it's in the Qur'an. These terrorists are misinterpreting their religion for their own means, in my opinion. But I don't claim to be an expert on Islam.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I feel like France as a whole have acted very irresponsibly and contributed to matters. Whether you care to admit it or not, Muslims are oppressed and marginalised in France. They are not allowed to wear hijabs/turbans, or pray in public etc. God knows what other undercurrents of "**** you muslims" lie beneath their culture and everyday interactions, seeing as they are so comfortable in implementing pretty discriminatory legislation.

    And to worsen matters, Charlie Hebdo has made several offensive and racist comics bashing, not constructively criticising, but attacking muslims and their faith. That would only make Muslims feel more victimised and it breeds and US vs Them mentality, all France did was lead them to the door of radicalisation, and it backfired.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    There is a difference of standing up against something that is wrong with the motive of trying to revolutionise the world and making things right AND mocking an entire religion just for the fun of it. Standing up against Islam and criticising it would've been the better thing, which is happening every day by several magazines and newspapers around the world. That's not offending Muslims, it's simply criticising them.

    Muslims respect their prophet way too much and are strictly against drawing pictures of him. Everyone knows that and doing that is simply adding fuel to the fire.
    You make it sound like he was targeting muslims and no one else.

    Considering the vast majority of muslims and imams have condemned what happened, I highly doubt they would agree with what you've said. No fuel has been added to the fire, rather some known extremists acquired guns and wanted to make themselves (in)famous.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nomes24)
    No- people can be offended by how you choose to use your freedom of speech, but they can't act on it. Sure they can respond (using their own freedom of speech) to criticise or condemn your remarks, but they can't take actions against you e.g. violence. The point is even if you disagree with what someone is saying- you can't attack or kill them because of it. It would be more productive, anyway, to try and criticise their remarks so they can see the error of their ways (if it is a completely inappropriate or derogatory opinion) and thus stop racism/ Islamophobia altogether. By killing people who insult you, you just give people more reason to believe their insults were true.

    As a matter of disclosure, I personally do not think racism or Islamophobia is acceptable, and also that the terrorists who perpetrated these attacks should not be regarded as true Muslims. Islam doesn't believe in murder or unprovoked violence: it's in the Qur'an. These terrorists are misinterpreting their religion for their own means, in my opinion. But I don't claim to be an expert on Islam.
    Your argument only goes against the action of terrorism. I share the same on that. But if you are against racism, that's clearly limiting freedom of speech. So, if that's wrong, insulting a religion is also wrong from that logic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    So, with that logic of freedom of speech, I should be allowed to go around expressing racist remarks openly without any fears, right? What makes this case different?



    What's your point?
    My point was in response to someone else stating that the prophet was 'disturbing' and that Islam mentions violence against non Muslims

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by addylad)
    You make it sound like he was targeting muslims and no one else.

    Considering the vast majority of muslims and imams have condemned what happened, I highly doubt they would agree with what you've said. No fuel has been added to the fire, rather some known extremists acquired guns and wanted to make themselves (in)famous.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm pretty sure most imams and Muslims agree with the point that both were wrong: Charlie Hebdo as well as the terrorists. They provoked it, the others went over the top. But extremists are always wrong. An official magazine publisher should be better than extremists and not be wrong. (Putting it in the very simplest of words)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, our standards shouldn't be set to accommodate extremists. The only people at fault are the ones responsible for the crime. If we censor our opinions/satire/images etc so as not to anger terrorists, then the terrorism will never end. Can't reward it - got to whack it with a stick.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llpokerll)
    Your argument only goes against the action of terrorism. I share the same on that. But if you are against racism, that's clearly limiting freedom of speech. So, if that's wrong, insulting a religion is also wrong from that logic.
    Not entirely sure what you're saying, sorry. I'm against racism and if I hear a racist remark I would not respond positively to it. I would try and show the person my opinion- how racism, in my opinion, is completely outdated and wrong. It might not work, but I would try. I would accept that they have freedom of speech... but I'm not exactly going to be happy about their views, personally.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em.d_4)
    Do you not think that saying we need to be careful of the muslims because they have more extremists and therefore censor what we say is 100% letting extremism win?
    These things may offend them on the ground of their religion, but what about the people offended by the theory of evolution? Or people offended by homosexuality or those offended by your choice of clothing? Should we not do those things in case somebody is offended?
    Personally i find homophobia hugely offensive and wrong and yet in the 21st century people are still executed for it, the part of the UK where i live doesn't allow gay men to donate blood, and is pushing for laws allowing medical professionals to not provide treatment to gay people if they aren't happy to...? Can we stop people being homophobic because it offends me? Nope we can't, we can debate with people and educate them to our point of view but we can't impose our views upon them.
    We can not allow muslims to be an untouchable group where we dare not express views, or criticize, or even poke fun (see the way we do at the catholic priests? many catholics find the exceptionally offensive) just in case we offend some mental raving extremist lunatic who's views and actions only have the support of a tiny minority.
    Um no. There is clear bold line between criticism and antagonism. When a gay couple holds hands in public or a tutor teaches evolution, their intention is not to offend. The sole and entire purpose of drawing Mohammed was to offend. There wasn't any constructive debate in that "satirical" comic and you know it.

 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.