The French Massacre - Do We Stand Up For Free Speech?

Josef K · 01-09-2015, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pet_Sounds

Yeah, same here, I've only read about ten-twenty chapters (but, on an unrelated note, I have read almost all of the Bible). My dad's read all of it though.

I'm asking both out of curiosity and to learn how seriously I should take what people are saying.

That sounds like about how much I've read.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-09-2015, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Total oversimplification JWB. No wonder you broke your leg at the theatre, jumping to conclusions like that!

as much as i appreciate the historical reference and the dad joke, what you call an oversimplification i call telling it like it is without sugarcoating it for PC's sake.

honestly you guys saying the magazine should have known better are essentially saying what i said in so many words. they should've known better than to insult islam without expecting violence. it's pure insanity to me that you guys are willing to accept this level of discourse. honestly you should be deported to iraq for wanting to appease these bearded thugs.

~~Cuthbert~~ · 01-09-2015, 07:08 PM

"if you keep saying our religion is violent and intolerant, we will murder you, mate"

Oriphiel · 01-09-2015, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart

How did they stand up? By getting themselves killed? Great idea.

And please stop placing words in my mouth. I am not in the least cavalier about their deaths: I just think they need to be looked at in context. It was preventable, is what I'm saying. There's enough trouble in the world without stirring up more.

1. You open with a joke about their deaths, and then complain that I described your attitude towards their deaths as "cavalier".

2. You accuse me of placing words in your mouth, when all I did was analyze analogies that you yourself used earlier on.

3. You're right, there is enough trouble in the world. Which is why we shouldn't just sit back while murderers make it worse.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-09-2015, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

One of the two muslims went up and shot a police officer in the back of the head while the officer was down on the pavement rolling in pain from being shot prior to his execution. I think people get caught up with the cartoons like the leader of Isis saying "have a healthy new year," and the promise that someone in islam is going to be next month's chief editor, saying how atrocious that is, that they had it coming because that is mockery of islam having the leader of Isis in a cartoon. Like somehow they are not responsible for their actions, other people are. I am pretty naive about all the ins and outs of islam but don't they have something like the ten commandments like the Jewish religion that says "Thou shall not kill"? I mean I can't even fathom the comparison of cartoon of the Isis leader that at the end of the day that doesn't amount to a hill of beans compare to human life. Those two muslims weren't provoked, they were assassins. That officer was killed because those two muslim had bloodlust - period. It has nothing to do with any other excuse.

look into sayyid qutb. he was the sort of forefather of modern islamic extremism, and he helped lay the theological groundwork for justifying the deaths of civilians in attempts to establish an islamic state. the quran clearly condemns killing women and children and especially killing muslims, but modern extremists have a convoluted way of reasoning around that which i won't get into unless someone really wants me to. it also condemns suicide outright which they have another even more convoluted way of reasoning around. they basically bend the faith to comply with their tactics because they see no other way of obtaining their ultimate goal (an islamic caliphate ruled under sharia.) "the looming tower" goes into pretty good detail on this topic and on the islamists who planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks specifically and is worth a read for anyone interested in this sort of thing.

The Batlord · 01-09-2015, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

You're right, and you know what else I think? I think women should show some common sense when going out at night. Why should you be surprised when you get raped when you're wearing miniskirts and low cut blouses and thongs? Don't poke the rape bear.

I'd kind of like to get some women's perspective on my post, since I know rape is a touchy subject, and I'd like to know that I'm not stepping on any toes. I think my analogy was a good one, but it's kind of hard to tell the nitty gritty details as a man.

Oriphiel · 01-09-2015, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I know, you know and most people know that violence is never the answer especially when it leads to murder, but you're dealing with an element that thinks differently and their victims surely knew that as well.

That's called individual choice, but like with every serious individual choice there is normally a knock-on effect to family or friends etc and those making that choice are often faced with a sense or responsibility of whether its worth it or not. In the case of those that worked for the magazine it certainly wasn't, because their family and friends are the ones left to pick up the emotional pieces.

When I was about 21 I thought like this and freedom of expression was everything, but many years on compromise, experience and looking at how irrational human behaviour and programming can be, has proved a far more solid recipe in wading through life. A driver doesn't always need to floor the accelerator to get from a to b quickly, going at a sensible speed normally gets there just as quickly.

...........and its always been enjoyed here and probably always will, but that's not to say that an individual shouldn't take care now and again in his or her actions, as they say it's always better to live and fight another day.

What are we even disagreeing about at this point? We both dislike wanton violence, and believe that people should have the right to express themselves. I feel like the reason we're going back and forth is that you think i'm on the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to freedoms and rights, that I think all people should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want. That isn't the case at all. It seems like the only real difference between you and I is that I refuse to crack jokes about dead people who were trying to defend their right to peacefully express themselves, even if they were expressing themselves in a way that you don't particularly fancy.

Oriphiel · 01-09-2015, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I'd kind of like to get some women's perspective on my post, since I know rape is a touchy subject, and I'd like to know that I'm not stepping on any toes. I think my analogy was a good one, but it's kind of hard to tell the nitty gritty details as a man.

I took a few criminal justice classes in college, and we touched on the subject fairly often. Most rapes are committed by people who personally know the victim, and often take place in a familiar setting such as a house or apartment. And beyond that, it's also often more about psychological dominance than it is about sex, meaning that someone with the mindset of a rapist often doesn't care about the clothes you wear. So characterizing it as some spur-of-the-moment thing that generic thugs do at night is not even broadly accurate. Wearing revealing clothing doesn't magically make the men around you into a rapist; if someone rapes you, it's not your fault. It's not because of something you did. It's because the rapist needed a victim, and when someone with that kind of mentality looks for a victim, they would have found one even if you hadn't been there.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 01-09-2015, 07:41 PM

there's nothing wrong with being on the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to freedom of speech, imo. like chomsky says: either you support free speech or you don't. even stalin believed in speech he agreed with being free. it's the controversial speech that actually needs protecting.

i mean on the one hand we have people who are willing to kill for their religion. they at least have principles. they know where they stand. we should be just as firm with our values imo.

Chula Vista · 01-09-2015, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

The point is not to restrict the right of free speech - well, you can't yell fire in a theater or bomb on a plane - just use common sense with that right.

I agree with Wpnfire. If they chose to continue poking the rabid bear then they should have moved from their well known address to a secret location, armed themselves to the teeth, changed their names, etc.

I also don't wish to speak ill of the dead but they were a bit too cavalier about who they were dealing with.

And as far as Islam being the only religion going to extremes when folks don't listen to them? Tell that to George Tiller's family.

George Tiller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because the whole free speech is coming back again I'm quoting an earlier post.

01-09-2015, 07:08 PM	#163 (permalink)
~~Cuthbert~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: The Black Country Posts: 8,827	"if you keep saying our religion is violent and intolerant, we will murder you, mate"

01-09-2015, 07:41 PM	#169 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	there's nothing wrong with being on the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to freedom of speech, imo. like chomsky says: either you support free speech or you don't. even stalin believed in speech he agreed with being free. it's the controversial speech that actually needs protecting. i mean on the one hand we have people who are willing to kill for their religion. they at least have principles. they know where they stand. we should be just as firm with our values imo.