Quote ( Krasen Belev @ January 9th 2015,01:27:46 )
We are talking about freedom of speech, but didn't hear a lot for Ahmed on the medias...
Media is crap. They show us what attracts us more. Ahmed's story is not such a great news compared to all details about that massacre.
Religion is not the problem. The problem is how men use religion to convince people to do horrible things. Don't forget what Christians did in the whole history in the name of God.
Quote ( Shane Ferguson @ January 9th 2015,06:57:32 )
I heard on the news here that company usually only publish's like 60k copies but now someone has donated money and next week they will publish over 1 million copies..so if the morons thought shooting would silence them it has backfired as they will reach even more people now..It has the media from around the globe showing support and will prove the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
Je suis Charlie
Yeah this is a very smart thing to do...if you want to escalate the problem. Print more anti-muslim cartoons in a country with high number of muslims. Of course if you want more shooting.
Quote ( Shane Ferguson @ January 9th 2015,06:57:32 )
I heard on the news here that company usually only publish's like 60k copies but now someone has donated money and next week they will publish over 1 million copies..so if the morons thought shooting would silence them it has backfired as they will reach even more people now..It has the media from around the globe showing support and will prove the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.
Totally don't agree with this. Sorry but I can't see how publisising the thing that caused this to happen can help. That isn't solidarity, it's mocking the people who did this, it's also saying that religious prejudice is okay in todays society. I do not believe in that, I am not happy with how this is being dealth with at all.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,08:47:23 )
Sorry but I can't see how publisising the thing that caused this to happen can help. That isn't solidarity, it's mocking the people who did this
But why is it "not solidarity"? Who decides which it is?
You can interpret it your way or you could say it is showing that the act of terrorism will not be allowed to influence them - that trying to force a change with guns and murder is not right and will not work.
Quote ( Branimir Karačić @ January 9th 2015,08:44:49 )
Yeah this is a very smart thing to do...if you want to escalate the problem. Print more anti-muslim cartoons in a country with high number of muslims. Of course if you want more shooting.
So allow those that committed the atrocity to achieve the goal they wanted? Show people that guns and murder is a way to get your own way?
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,08:51:04 )
But why is it "not solidarity"? Who decides which it is?
Okay it is solidarity, it's showing that it is still okay to be a fascist.
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,08:51:04 )
So allow those that committed the atrocity to achieve the goal they wanted? Show people that guns and murder is a way to get your own way?
No, you are right there, we need to find a way to stop them from thinking they won, however there are other ways of showing this than printing something which will just anger them.
Quote ( Mattias Svensson @ January 9th 2015,08:57:25 )
Blaming the victims of this attack is not helping anyone who doesnt want to live in fear.
I never blamed the victims, I just said I didn't agree with their actions. I blame the people who shot them, I don't condone murder at all like I've said many times on this thread, however that doesn't mean I will suddenly support any murder victims work. I will not be repeating myself again on this thread as it is getting annoying how many people are accusing me of the same thing.
Quote ( Mattias Svensson @ January 9th 2015,08:57:25 )
Oh yes it is!
Oh no it isn't. This isn't a panto, please argue constructively if you want to make a point.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
I never blamed the victims, I just said I didn't agree with their actions.
I, from the other hand, agree and support their actions. There're multiple reasons of why religions should be condemned and made fun of, and no reasons why to limit freedom of expression
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,08:51:04 )
But why is it "not solidarity"? Who decides which it is? Okay it is solidarity, it's showing that it is still okay to be a fascist.
Very strange to accuse Charlie Hebdo to be fascist because they fight every time against fascism and against front national. I think you obviously don't know who they are and what they are doing. You thing they are against muslin but they are only against religion, all religion. Next week they will publish to say they are living and they are help by other french publication to do that. I hope they will continue to draw because murdering and extremism in religion don't have to say what we have or not the right to do in France. They are fighting for our liberty.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
Okay it is solidarity, it's showing that it is still okay to be a fascist.
Agree with what they publish or not, if you believe Charlie Hebdo to be fascist, then you either don't understand Charlie Hebdo or you don't understand what fascism is.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
No, you are right there, we need to find a way to stop them from thinking they won, however there are other ways of showing this than printing something which will just anger them.
But by not being free to print what they want in a similar way that they have in the past, then they have "won", they have achieved what they wanted. Surely that was their goal?
Quote Okay it is solidarity, it's showing that it is still okay to be a fascist. .
A couple of points really.
1) You don't actually seem to know what facism is. 2) Charlie Hebdo is the French equivalent of Private eye. I think you may be under the impression they are some hate group, which is incorrect.
Quote ( Joel Trekane @ January 9th 2015,11:15:18 )
Very strange to accuse Charlie Hebdo to be fascist because they fight every time against fascism and against front national. I think you obviously don't know who they are and what they are doing. You thing they are against muslin but they are only against religion, all religion. Next week they will publish to say they are living and they are help by other french publication to do that. I hope they will continue to draw because murdering and extremism in religion don't have to say what we have or not the right to do in France. They are fighting for our liberty.
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,11:19:47 )
If you believe Charlie Hebdo to be fascist, then you either don't understand Charlie Hebdo or you don't understand what fascism is.
I used fascist as a term a bit liberally there, taking into account religion as well as politics. People have a right to believe in what they want to believe in, I agree it is okay to mock religion, to criticize, but to use satire that is racist I cannot agree with, this is something they have done on multiple occasions.
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,11:19:47 )
But by not being free to print what they want in a similar way that they have in the past, then they have "won", they have achieved what they wanted. Surely that was their goal?
Yes that is true, that was their goal. But who is to say their goal was bad? The way they went about reaching it was, but why should we accept what they were trying to stop because they went about it the wrong way?
Quote ( Ryan Simmons @ January 9th 2015,11:41:32 )
Charlie Hebdo is the French equivalent of Private eye. I think you may be under the impression they are some hate group, which is incorrect.
Hate group no, they are middle class white men punching down.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,11:44:37 )
but to use satire that is racist I cannot agree with
I have real issues with people describing religious satire as racist. They are not the same thing. Muslims are not a race. Christians are not a race. Jews are not a race. Criticising religion by way of satire is perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, but I can understand why people would be against it, but it is not racist.
While not suitable for the forum, please PM me any such cartoons which you are describing as "racist", as I haven't seen any.
The use of the word "racism" instead of "religious prejudice" is not an argument against my point. I may have used the wrong term but you knew exactly what I meant.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,11:49:11 )
The use of the word "racism" instead of "religious prejudice" is not an argument against my point. I may have used the wrong term but you knew exactly what I meant.
Firstly, the terms are very different and it is wrong and dangerous to confuse one with the other. But if you are talking of religious prejudice and not racism, how can you precede your point by saying...
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,11:44:37 )
I agree it is okay to mock religion, to criticize
You can't say it's OK to mock or criticise religion but then claim some religious bias by someone mocking religion. They mock and criticise all religion so where is the religious prejudice?
(Probably best to end this here, as don't see a way to continue without getting in to actual religious debate over the generalisations that have been used so far)
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,11:52:18 )
Firstly, the terms are very different and it is wrong and dangerous to confuse one with the other. But if you are talking of religious prejudice and not racism, how can you precede your point by saying...
One is prejudice to race, one is prejudice to religion, very similar as some people categorize religion as a race.
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,11:52:18 )
You can't say it's OK to mock or criticise religion but then claim some religious bias by someone mocking religion. They mock and criticise all religion so where is the religious prejudice?
(Probably best to end this here, as don't see a way to continue without getting in to actual religious debate over the generalisations that have been used so far)
It is okay to mock religion, I don't think it is okay to use prejudice views in this mocking. The prejudice isn't in mocking the religion itself, it is how they portray the people of that religion.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,12:02:21 )
as some people categorize religion as a race.
Which is totally and utterly wrong. They are not the same thing and some people wrongly making out they are the same thing does not make it acceptable or correct.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,12:02:21 )
It is okay to mock religion, I don't think it is okay to use prejudice views in this mocking. The prejudice isn't in mocking the religion itself, it is how they portray the people of that religion.
I can't understand the distinction, but we can't go in to it any further in the public forum without it being a religious debate so will end it here.
Still open to receiving that PM from you though, to show the cartoons you think aren't acceptable over other cartoons that are. :)
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
I never blamed the victims,
Yes you did.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,08:47:23 )
Sorry but I can't see how publisising the thing that caused this to happen can help.
If you are the judge on this, you have to jump off the fence. Either the killers caused the action, (my stanpoint) or the guys making the cartoons caused the action. (your standpoint) Your answer here is where you put the blame.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
Oh no it isn't. This isn't a panto, please argue constructively if you want to make a point.
I try to make my point as clear and simple as i can. I put no blame on Charlie Hebdo for the 12 lives taken, therefor all solidarity from my side is with the victims of the attack.
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,12:07:35 )
Which is totally and utterly wrong. They are not the same thing and just as some wrongly do it does not make it acceptable.
Agreed, and I apologise for using the wrong term in my argument, but that does not render it invalid or diminish it's point in any way. Using the "religion is not a race line" does not mean they haven't done something wrong, in britain we even class them under the same act for discrimination and hatred: "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006". This article really outlines my point that just because it isn't racism doesn't mean it should be treated like it is: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/20/islam-r...
Quote ( Kevin Parkinson @ January 9th 2015,12:07:35 )
I can't understand the distinction, but we can't go in to it any further in the public forum without it being a religious debate so will end it here.
Still open to receiving that PM from you though, to show the cartoons you think aren't acceptable over other cartoons that are. :)
I wont discuss it as it goes into religious discussion like you said but a quote from the article: "the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic"
Quote ( Mattias Svensson @ January 9th 2015,12:08:31 )
Yes you did.
Where? I never said they caused it, I said what they did was wrong, this is completely different.
N.B. I know I said I wouldn't answer to this question again but it is really frustrating me!
Quote ( Mattias Svensson @ January 9th 2015,12:08:31 )
If you are the judge on this, you have to jump off the fence. Either the killers caused the action, (my stanpoint) or the guys making the cartoons caused the action. (your standpoint) Your answer here is where you put the blame.
That is not my standpoint at all and I am disgusted that you can even consider that my standpoint from what I have said. I have made it very clear it is not.
Quote ( Jake Stothard @ January 9th 2015,10:54:16 )
I never blamed the victims, I just said I didn't agree with their actions. I blame the people who shot them, I don't condone murder at all like I've said many times on this thread, however that doesn't mean I will suddenly support any murder victims work. I will not be repeating myself again on this thread as it is getting annoying how many people are accusing me of the same thing.
Quote ( Kuba Szajbel @ January 9th 2015,11:08:20 )
I, from the other hand, agree and support their actions. There're multiple reasons of why religions should be condemned and made fun of, and no reasons why to limit freedom of expression
An interview with Bill Maher is about the worst thing you can show in terms of religious mocking. He has no support at all from any (non religious) scientist in the field of religion. He is extremely biased against muslims, which Charlie Hebdo isnt imo.
English
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
