Why I'm not Charlie and never will be
Scroll to see replies
Original post by JamesNeedHelp2
Why do you defend their right, if you dont agree, if you are going to be offended, and above all, if you are not in any shape or form, going to take part?
Let me consult my power of inference, "Because they have a right to do it!!!!!"
I find it again, as stated previously, irresponsible, immature, and now additionally, unintelligent.
Let me consult my power of inference, "Because they have a right to do it!!!!!"
I find it again, as stated previously, irresponsible, immature, and now additionally, unintelligent.
Look, the vast majority of citizens of the western world agree with me. Surely the events of last week must have shown you that? They can't all be immature, can they?
The vast majority of those that don't agree are religious people with an axe to grind, nearly all of whom are happy to have the right to denigrate religions other than their own but don't want anyone criticising their own.
You yourself have just made a statement that some people would consider offensive - that I am immature, irresponsible and unintelligent. You have used the right I am defending and which you are saying should not exist. What would be your reaction if I said that about your prophet? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
You are, presumably, going to live your life in the world where people have this right. Isn't it time you came to terms with that and accepted it or, if you can't face it, made plans to find somewhere that people don't have such rights?
Original post by Good bloke
Look, the vast majority of citizens of the western world agree with me. Surely the events of last week must have shown you that? They can't all be immature, can they?
The vast majority of those that don't agree are religious people with an axe to grind, nearly all of whom are happy to have the right to denigrate religions other than their own but don't want anyone criticising their own.
What on earth are you talking about. Your words are nonsensical from its very essence. These statements, that i have marked in bold above, are your subjective opinion of the events surrounding charlie hebdo. I disagree when you say that the majority of the western world would agree with you. What poll have you taken, what statistical evidence do you have, what are the facts that your statement is backed by? Not an iota.
You yourself have just made a statement that some people would consider offensive - that I am immature, irresponsible and unintelligent. You have used the right I am defending and which you are saying should not exist. What would be your reaction if I said that about your prophet? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Again, utter tosh. I made that conclusion based on the drivel you spouted in the penultimate posts above. Furthermore, i have never once stated that i am against freedom of speech, i did nonetheless, say that it comes with responsibility. This is a strawman on your part. I hope you dont kill a bunch of journalists because you are offended.
You are, presumably, going to live your life in the world where people have this right. Isn't it time you came to terms with that and accepted it or, if you can't face it, made plans to find somewhere that people don't have such rights?
The vast majority of those that don't agree are religious people with an axe to grind, nearly all of whom are happy to have the right to denigrate religions other than their own but don't want anyone criticising their own.
What on earth are you talking about. Your words are nonsensical from its very essence. These statements, that i have marked in bold above, are your subjective opinion of the events surrounding charlie hebdo. I disagree when you say that the majority of the western world would agree with you. What poll have you taken, what statistical evidence do you have, what are the facts that your statement is backed by? Not an iota.
You yourself have just made a statement that some people would consider offensive - that I am immature, irresponsible and unintelligent. You have used the right I am defending and which you are saying should not exist. What would be your reaction if I said that about your prophet? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
Again, utter tosh. I made that conclusion based on the drivel you spouted in the penultimate posts above. Furthermore, i have never once stated that i am against freedom of speech, i did nonetheless, say that it comes with responsibility. This is a strawman on your part. I hope you dont kill a bunch of journalists because you are offended.
You are, presumably, going to live your life in the world where people have this right. Isn't it time you came to terms with that and accepted it or, if you can't face it, made plans to find somewhere that people don't have such rights?
Read my previous posts buddy, is it not time for you to comprehend that freedom of speech comes with responsibility? If not, my case for you being unintelligent, irresponsible and above all, immature remains.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by JamesNeedHelp2
"HE SAID THE RIGHT OF ANYONE!!!"
Writing in capital, does not make your argument anymore credible.
He would defend the right of anyone, or anyone's right, to be offensive. I could rephrase it 1 million times, it does not change its meaning..
Writing in capital, does not make your argument anymore credible.
He would defend the right of anyone, or anyone's right, to be offensive. I could rephrase it 1 million times, it does not change its meaning..
Writing things in bold, does not make your argument anymore credible.
No. He said the RIGHT of Anyone.
He said he defends the RIGHT. Not ANYONE.
For example, if I said that I defend the RIGHT of Muslims to protest against the Israeli occupation and etc. That does not mean I defend all Muslims.
I hope the distinction is clear.
Original post by 08.f.poswal
there isn't anything critical about it though and btw... I am not one of those extremists and we are all against terrorism. I just can't take some charlie guy making carttons of our prophet (PBUH) it is offensive.
also... people brainwashing other people about 'i am charlie' thing IS OFFENSIVE coz I AINT CHARLIE AND I know he was wrong. okay
also... people brainwashing other people about 'i am charlie' thing IS OFFENSIVE coz I AINT CHARLIE AND I know he was wrong. okay
You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to kill. Charlie Hebdo have every right to publish their satire.
Original post by Opiece
Congrats, you're supporting the same cause as the antisemitic, racist, far-right French politician Jean-Marie Le Pen, who also happened to commit pointless torture on Algerians during the Algerian independence war. How proud you must be.
Except that you seem to be so entrapped in your warped vision of humanity that you wouldn't even care...
Except that you seem to be so entrapped in your warped vision of humanity that you wouldn't even care...
Muslims kill Jews, that's not anti-Semitic. A man claims the Holocaust was only one detail of WWII and he's a bigot. Good job.
well according to what I am aware of or what I know,
I do not support terrorism and I do not support the magazine either because it goes against my faith/religion.
I believe it was justified in the sense that charlie dead means the terrorist dead, however, free speech is not nice if people are going to use it to insult others. I am who I am.
I believe that BBC was biased since it was arguing for the supporters of charlie and not looking at the whole picture. There is a lot more to than we can see.
That must've been an extremist attack and they have been attacked back according to what I am aware of , however, it does hurt us a lot if people discriminate our prophet because he came to guide us and we cannot stand it when people say bad things and discriminate him because he was the best of all prophets and never did anything wrong.
If you were a christian or a Jew and I discriminated your prophet, you would feel the same way. But I am never going to discriminate a prophet. God forbid.
so I don't understand really, coz people protesting want both peace and are supporters of charlie.
Charlie obviously didn't want peace because discriminating our prophet (pbuh) causes that hatred between the extremist group( which people call terrorists). This leads to attacks (because they are extreme, they think thats the best way), and then it comes on the news and the others are classed as victims when actually both are dead. hence why BBC is biased.
and then people cause hatred an start to blame all muslims for it when actually we havent caused the attacks . the word 'ISLAM' means peace its self.indeed ISLAM is the religion of peace. There may be a few extremists but i am not one of them. and also baring in mind that what the magazine showed was offensive.
I do not support terrorism and I do not support the magazine either because it goes against my faith/religion.
I believe it was justified in the sense that charlie dead means the terrorist dead, however, free speech is not nice if people are going to use it to insult others. I am who I am.
I believe that BBC was biased since it was arguing for the supporters of charlie and not looking at the whole picture. There is a lot more to than we can see.
That must've been an extremist attack and they have been attacked back according to what I am aware of , however, it does hurt us a lot if people discriminate our prophet because he came to guide us and we cannot stand it when people say bad things and discriminate him because he was the best of all prophets and never did anything wrong.
If you were a christian or a Jew and I discriminated your prophet, you would feel the same way. But I am never going to discriminate a prophet. God forbid.
so I don't understand really, coz people protesting want both peace and are supporters of charlie.
Charlie obviously didn't want peace because discriminating our prophet (pbuh) causes that hatred between the extremist group( which people call terrorists). This leads to attacks (because they are extreme, they think thats the best way), and then it comes on the news and the others are classed as victims when actually both are dead. hence why BBC is biased.
and then people cause hatred an start to blame all muslims for it when actually we havent caused the attacks . the word 'ISLAM' means peace its self.indeed ISLAM is the religion of peace. There may be a few extremists but i am not one of them. and also baring in mind that what the magazine showed was offensive.
Original post by 08.f.poswal
If you were a christian or a Jew and I discriminated your prophet, you would feel the same way. But I am never going to discriminate a prophet. God forbid.
If you were a christian or a Jew and I discriminated your prophet, you would feel the same way. But I am never going to discriminate a prophet. God forbid.
Jesus gets taken the piss out of him endlessly... Christian and Jews have thick skin and do not feel self-conscious about their beliefs, clearly. Muslims will almost stand alone when they demand that freedom of expression makes concessions for religion.
and then people cause hatred an start to blame all muslims for it when actually we havent caused the attacks . the word 'ISLAM' means peace its self.indeed ISLAM is the religion of peace
Uh-oh
Someone clearly doesn't know much about their own religion... The word 'Islam' means submission, which derives from the word 'aslama' which means to submit/yield.
That alone undermines your very dubious claim that Islam is the religion of peace.
There may be a few extremists but i am not one of them. and also baring in mind that what the magazine showed was offensive.
Offence is taken not given. I direct you to a quote by Stephen Fry (pbuh):
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****ing what."
Liberals are offended by Islamic teachings, so what then?
Original post by 08.f.poswal
true. but why should he challenge?
Because Muslims hold him up as the perfect figure, who is without flaw and who must be loved unconditionally. A lot of people disagree with this notion, and want to highlight criticisms of his character through satire.
and why are holy books offensive to people because religion does exist. whether people agree or disagree.
Huh? That doesn't even make sense. Holy books are offensive because they contain passages which could deeply offend women, gay people and non-believers. Whether the passages are correct is immaterial (they obviously are not), just as it's immaterial to Muslims whether the messages being conveyed in satirical images of Muhammad are correct or not. It's the effect - the offence that people feel - which is the issue here.
Original post by Lady Comstock
It's because of people like them, people who stand up for free speech, that you're allowed to post the offensive comments you have just posted.
Exactly. SO what is the point of free speech if free speech only gives ground for people to say unworthy, "offensive" things?
I think we're better off without it. Not having free speech=being raised to not say hateful and just plainly ignorant stuff.Original post by pocahontas lol
Exactly. SO what is the point of free speech if free speech only gives ground for people to say unworthy, "offensive" things? I think we're better off without it. Not having free speech=being raised to not say hateful and just plainly ignorant stuff.
I think we're better off without it. Not having free speech=being raised to not say hateful and just plainly ignorant stuff.Because it leads to a slippery slope. You honesty trust the state to determine what is criminally offensive? You go down that route and you give the state the power to criminalise criticism and mockery of it.
And again, you would have to ban the Qur'an and the Bible under this logic.
Original post by pocahontas lol
Exactly. SO what is the point of free speech if free speech only gives ground for people to say unworthy, "offensive" things? I think we're better off without it. Not having free speech=being raised to not say hateful and just plainly ignorant stuff.
I think we're better off without it. Not having free speech=being raised to not say hateful and just plainly ignorant stuff.You wouldn't be allowed to post!
Original post by Josb
You wouldn't be allowed to post!
Likewise.
And if I am ignorant, and can't post. Cool. Less burden to the world. I don't feel a need to post. It's better off if there was no social media anyway. Do you really wanna start this?
Original post by pocahontas lol
Likewise.
And if I am ignorant, and can't post. Cool. Less burden to the world. I don't feel a need to post. It's better off if there was no social media anyway. Do you really wanna start this?
And if I am ignorant, and can't post. Cool. Less burden to the world. I don't feel a need to post. It's better off if there was no social media anyway. Do you really wanna start this?
I'm for freedom of speech, you can say anything you want.
Original post by Josb
I'm for freedom of speech, you can say anything you want.
Well I'm not for freedom of speech and I don't think people should just go around wielding their freedom to say hurtful stupid stuff.
Now what.
Original post by pocahontas lol
Well I'm not for freedom of speech and I don't think people should just go around wielding their freedom to say hurtful stupid stuff.
Now what.
Now what.
So should the Bible and the Qur'an be banned for the offensiveness: yes or no?
Original post by pocahontas lol
Well I'm not for freedom of speech and I don't think people should just go around wielding their freedom to say hurtful stupid stuff.
Now what.
Now what.
Then stop using that freedom of speech, you sinner.
Original post by Lady Comstock
So should the Bible and the Qur'an be banned for the offensiveness: yes or no?
What in the name of Jesus and Mohammed are you talking about?
Did you seriously think that suffices as an analogy?
Did you seriously think I'd play along and dignify and legitimize this silliness of a question with an actual answer?
Skate on.
Original post by pocahontas lol
What in the name of Jesus and Mohammed are you talking about?
Did you seriously think that suffices as an analogy?
Did you seriously think I'd play along and dignify and legitimize this silliness of a question with an actual answer?
Skate on.
Did you seriously think that suffices as an analogy?
Did you seriously think I'd play along and dignify and legitimize this silliness of a question with an actual answer?
Skate on.
Oh dear, more diversions.
Please tell me why it's not a sufficient analogy?
Drawing of Muhammad - proportion of Muslims feel offended.
Passages in the Qur'an and Bible - proportion of gay people, women, and non-believers feel offended.
I look forward to you telling me how one of those is a more credible or worthwhile form of offence than the other, and why.
Original post by Lady Comstock
Oh dear, more diversions.
Please tell me why it's not a sufficient analogy?
Drawing of Muhammad - proportion of Muslims feel offended.
Passages in the Qur'an and Bible - proportion of gay people, women, and non-believers feel offended.
I look forward to you telling me how one of those is a more credible or worthwhile form of offence than the other, and why.
Please tell me why it's not a sufficient analogy?
Drawing of Muhammad - proportion of Muslims feel offended.
Passages in the Qur'an and Bible - proportion of gay people, women, and non-believers feel offended.
I look forward to you telling me how one of those is a more credible or worthwhile form of offence than the other, and why.
This is becoming a bore. Keep using the "diversion and evasion and equivocation" thing if you want to, but sooner than later, it will lose its effect, think not? Because simply and truthfully put, it's not a diversion just because I point out to you that your argument isn't worth arguing. I know it sucks, but it's true.
To play along so you can go away
, it fails as an analogy because only an atheist or someone being vulgar for argument's sake would call religious standards and principles offensive. And those satirical articles are not for the purpose of religious principle. They were made to simply offend people on the license of "free speech," and some colony of mental racists and bigots find it funny, lo and behold. Don't even START sensationalizing about gays with me!! Ok I'm done. I'll come back when I am ready to not get ****ing aggravated with you.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by pocahontas lol
This is becoming a bore. Keep using the "diversion and evasion and equivocation" thing if you want to, but sooner than later, it will lose its effect, think not? Because simply and truthfully put, it's not a diversion just because I point out to you that your argument isn't worth arguing. I know it sucks, but it's true.
Then why reply at all? I think people on this forum will interpret for themselves what your constant refusals to offer a counter-argument suggest.
it fails as an analogy because only an atheist or someone being vulgar for argument's sake would call religious standards and principles offensive.
Objectively, they are the same as any standards and principles. A religious passage that says "gay people are abominations" (hypothetically) is no greater, objectively, than a poster that says the same.
And those satirical articles are not for the purpose of religious principle.
Again, something being for "the purpose of religious principle" does not mean it is more entitled to offend people than any other text or document.
They were made to simply offend people on the license of "free speech," and some colony of mental racists and bigots find it funny, lo and behold.
They were made to satirise a religious figure who is held up as perfect and beyond reproach, and to protest censorship.
Don't even START sensationalizing about gays with me!! Ok I'm done. I'll come back when I am ready to not get ****ing aggravated with you.
If you can't engage in civilised debate without getting angry and upset, then don't debate at all.
(edited 9 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I’m convinced my ex is guilty. What do you all think?
- My favorite books
- Film Reccomendation: The Intruder
- York St John Illustration Interview
- Mnemonics for the Reactivity Series
- MEI A Level Mathematics Probability
- maths ocr paper 6
- International Placement Opportunities 2024
- PGCE Primary interview tips and ideas
- What film deserves a prequel?
- List 1 MILLION SONGS - Part 1
- Song name alphabet game!!!
- English Language Coursework NEA Help OCR
- 3 artists you love, 3 you dont like
- Law degree/A-Level regrets
- Random number texting me
- buying a house to let
- Watching movies as a hobby
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- Help with a level stats question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
