Forum menu
are Sunnis entitled to attack Shia as insulting their version of the religion ?
you mean in the same way Protestants and Catholics do? even if they do they dont use images of the prophet as all Muslims, Shia and Sunni know it is prohibited to do so.
just because i can insult you and say its free speaach doenst mean that doing so would be appropriate. i could say that i did it as a joke but if you didnt find it funny and got offended by it then i would rightly expect a response. i would be responsible for my actions that lead to that response, but you would be responsible for your actions against me in response to my insult.
everyone is accountable for their actions be it good or bad
I was discussing being "gratuitously offensive", which is to a large extent an objective thing.
Really - where do I find the definitive interpretation of this objective standard? 😆
You do realise that "freedom of speech" doesn't actually mean you can say whatever you like - don't go around hurling racist abuse either.
Um... yes that's exactly the point I was making. Are you being deliberately obtuse? But basically it's ok to be really offensive about Muslims and not give a shit about using the image of a dead child to score a cheap point/stoke up controversy. It appears to be fine to openly express support for an illegal war like Iraq in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed, but express mild sympathy for a terrorist in a fairly abstract way and go straight to jail.
What if I turn JYs analogy on its head and say this:
Then I will take it as admission that you cannot defeats the example I gave nor defend it so you need to re write it to say something different. its obvious that some things are just offensive, people can just be offensive and none of us would like to claim its a free speech thing its a not behave poorly thing.
You (both) seem to think that legal, peaceful behaviours that can lead to violence from others should be discouraged, so does everyone agree that women should censor their appearance to avoid inflaming lust, even if they differ on the degree of inflammation?
Obviously if I object to some of what CH does I am clearly saying that women who get raped deserved it Well done
Is this risible analogy day ? Shakes head i thought we were the poor of thinking ones.
What I am saying is the free speech has limits and some stuff is just offensive and if you do it then the result may be violence as you have upset some folk they may be Muslims they may be wedding guests etc.
It really depends how I present my idea if i want to object to the Pope say with a legitimate protest or a well worded eassy then fine. If I just want to follow him around chanting **** the pope he is a Nazi during a ceremony then no. Does no one on STW do nuance? Not everything is black and whiteOr is it only people with ideas who need to censor themselves in case of violence?
IMHO a critique of Islam is one thing drawing their prophet as a suicide bomber is another. Personally i can express my disdain for the religion without recourse to cartoons of the prophet that. I can criticise them without deliberately choosing a METHOD I know they will find offensive even if they do find the message offensive. The later Ok the former just rude IMHO
I don't think the prophet picture was intended to be offensive
So drawing the prophet [ which is forbidden] and doing him as suicide bomber was not intended to be offensive to Muslims. I dont see how anyone can argue that its JHJ levels
Clearly I should have added "to a reasonable person" to cover that possibility
Ah right stupid and unreasonable for disagreeing with you
Got it 😕
nobody deservers to be physically attacked for expressing an opinion , no matter how personally offensive you may find it. We are lucky in the west that for the most part this holds true. What ever your world view attack the idea not the person , whether you think CH did this well or poorly , IMO that is what they are trying to do.
I think it is different in the abusing someone to their face scenario , as a verbal attack may be a prelude to violence, only you can know this if you are in that situation , i would suggest that if you hit someone for only saying something offensive to you ,with no extra threat of violence you wouldn't get away with it in law.
Junkyard » So drawing the prophet [ which is forbidden]
Surely it's only forbidden of you're a Muslim or recognise their faith?
All religions have the piss ripped out of them by someone at some time or another - it's just the way it is.
Also, slightly OT, this bit you wrote...
Obviously if I object to some of what CH does I am clearly saying that women who get raped deserved it Well done
Is this risible analogy day ? Shakes head...
I reckon the reason you get riled by stuff like that is because of this...
Junkyard » These "debates" are the cyclist equivalent of going well dressed like that and having been drunk well what did she expect.
Junkyard » In that incident she did nothing wrong in the same way as a drunk woman walking him in a small dress did nothing wrong.
Both taken from the same thread a few weeks back.
What's that little saying...
[i]We teach best that which we most need to learn[/i]
...or something.
💡
🙂
All religions have the piss ripped out of them by someone at some time or another - it's just the way it is.
Indeed, imagine if someone shot the Monty Python team for life of Brian, or blew up the South Park Studios because of 'trapped in the closet'
Would they have been 'asking for it'?
Would anyone really suggest they should not have been made because they were offensive to some peoples religion?
That's some top stalking right there. ^^^
EDIT: @teasel's post.
Would anyone really suggest they should not have been made because
Are you saying there was no fuss kicked up about them?
It's not stalking, fella. I remembered Junkyard making a similar ludicrous comparison on a thread in the not too distant past. It took seconds to find the thread from my own posting history and I found the quoted material from there.
But, as usual, you pop up just to defend your old buddy, eh. Again, from memory, you made a very similar comment the last time I made a similar post criticising Junkyard's character flaws, only that time you implied a man crush or something.
You might have a point; I've heard he's quite the gent...
The thread...
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/another-cyclist-assaulted-update
Three weeks old. That's definitely stalking, that. I mean, why would anyone remember anything from three weeks ago...
Edit : I remember it clearly because he wrote almost the same thing twice in order to get a rise and no one took a bite, at which I chuckled. I also remember a similar troll on a meat orientated thread with some classic veggie speak trolling but I really can't remember when that was. Well, I probably could if I tried (because that's what I'm good at) but I really can't be arsed.
Jesus, JY is far from my old buddy - he knows I think he's a muppet - but fair dues, you have a good memory for stuff - especially stuff JY says. 😆
EDIT: I do wonder what it is that burns inside you that you feel the need to point out his character flaws (you do after all, admit to doing it quite a bit). It just seems, a bit, I dunno...I don't really want to say.
Some days I can't help myself
Yes. I can see that. This place must also mean quite a bit to you, bless your [insert material of choice] socks.
Btw, got a link to that golly thread? (I bet you do)
I learn a bit and it's a good laugh. That makes it worth reading.
And no, I really don't but I seem to remember you took part in that 'discussion' so do your own [s]stalking[/s]homework.
It's the kind of handwringing thread I'd love. I'll have to look. Was it recent or years ago?
**** knows.
Sometimes my memory is truly shit...
🙂
Edit : From the depths... Bruneep was the OP so that should make it easier to locate.
Would anyone really suggest they should not have been made because they were offensive to some peoples religion?
People said that about Life of Brian at the time. It was banned in Glasgow. Even back then it seems there were different standards for Christianity and Islam. There was a TV debate between a bishop, Malcolm Muggeridge, John Cleese, and Micharl Palin. Muggeridge said
"if you'd made that film about Mohammed there would have been an absolute hullaballo."
So no change there.
(around 5:15 in)
You don't like my analogy .. (unless apparently it helps you make a point) but thats OK.
Anyway, if I take away the analogy and just write;
"You seem to think that legal, peaceful behaviours that can lead to violence from others should be discouraged."
Do you agree?
If so could you list the _legal_ and _peaceful_ behaviours that I should not undertake to prevent violence being visited on me?
(I emphasise the "legal" and "peaceful" as that is what the drawing of cartoons and the writing of books are despite your "shouting in the face" analogy, which is .. pretty poor).
Another follow up question, what about Malala Yousafzai?
She wrote a blog when she was 12 advocating the education of girls and women. Some people found that idea offended their religious sensibilities so they shot her in the head.
Now, she clearly avoided the "drawing prophets" land mine but only to step on the "advocating education" land mine (doh!).
I'm sure you must have some useful advice for how she might conduct herself through the "offense" minefield in future to ensure that no-one will try to murder her again?
You seem like a thoughtful person, but if you can't see the sliding scale that censoring yourself to avoid "offense" in others puts you on then you are being willfully blind to the almost infinite number of things that some people somewhere will find "offensive".
Stephen Fry said it well:
"It's now very common to hear people say "I'm rather offended by that" as if it gives them certain rights.
It's no 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'm offended by that."
Well, so ****ing what?""
@gonzy I am as against terrorism in Ireland, from both sides, as I am against Islamic Jihadists. I appreciate you putting your perspective here, not always easy on STW. I think the comments you have made about Charlie Hebdo inciting a response which they deserve are quite commonly held in the Muslim community in Europe and beyond and that is a very grave problem.
@grum its 12 miles over the water from Bodrum to the Greek Islands (Kos?). The distance to the mainland is irrelevant as once in the country they are moved in safety by the Greek authorities via large ferries.
@ninfan I'm old enough to remember the outrage at Life of Brian from Christians, it caused much offence and was major news for quite some time. There was however no violence.
@gonzy I am as against terrorism in Ireland, from both sides, as I am against Islamic Jihadists. I appreciate you putting your perspective here, not always easy on STW. I think the comments you have made about Charlie Hebdo inciting a response which they deserve are quite commonly held in the Muslim community in Europe and beyond and that is a very grave problem.
i appreciate what you're saying there Jambalaya...but would that also include state sponsored terrorism?
if you or anyone else has ever bothered to read any of my comments on there threads on STW around similar issues you would see that i am also very much anti terrorism, i have been very critical of jihadism and i have also been equally critical of those who use islam as a justification for their own criminal activities and those who try to warp the true meaning of islam.
i have never said that those 11 people deserved to die...the magazine must have known that the danish magazine years before them had received death threats for drawing cartoons of the prophet mohammed. just because it is not written down as law does not mean that it is allowed. it is widely recognised that the quran is explicit that islam will not involve the worship of idols and that includes images of that which is regarded as holy and sacred. you say you've been to saudi many time jambalaya...how many saudi publications have you seen that use pictures depicting the prophet mohammed...satirical or otherwise? have you seen any with images of jesus?
just becuase religious piss taking is allowed in europe does not mean you can do it knowing that someone outside that realm will see it and get offended...
arsenal were once sponsored by sega and had it on their shirt...did you wonder why they never used that shirt when playing in europe?
criticism and satire of religion is a tricky issue at the best of times but when you know using certain types of imagery will be seen as offensive to those you are being critical of isnt going to do you any favours if someone from that group takes the law into their hands.
those 11 people didnt deserve to die, their killers didnt need to take it that far but they did and rightly should be condemned for that.
but knowing that CH must have had some idea of the impact the images used would have, they tok a risk and it backfired on them and in doing so they painted large targets on their employees...for that they have to take responsibility for...that they put their employees lives at risk.
to do it again is madness knowing what the reaction was last time...or is it a sign of cockiness from them....publishing the images knowing that they now benefit from armed security...(kind of like saying that we're protected now so we'll make these cartoons knowing they may offend some of you and you will be baying for blood...come and have a go if you think you're hard enough)
this is why i said if something bad did happen then it would be their fault as they knew the risks and have again put the lives of their employees in potential danger.
i agree with some of the point CH are trying to make...but i dont agree with the their style of delivery and the use of the recent images are in poor taste and shows a lack of sensitivity and respect.
neither do i agree that the correct response to their cartoons is to consort to violence.
however i still maintain that everyone is responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them...be that CH for publishing the cartoons or those who resort to violence against them in response to the cartoons.
Gonzy: "i still maintain that everyone is responsible for their own actions and should be held accountable for them...be that CH for publishing the cartoons or those who resort to violence against them in response to the cartoons."
Taken at face value this sentence makes sense. But thats not what you mean is it?
You actually mean that the people who _drew_ things on paper are at least partly responsible for their own _murders_.
That's 24 carat victim blaming of the worst possible kind.
I find your post offensive for that reason.
Now, does my offence mean that, by your own standards, you'll have to be quiet now?
Or would I have to have an AK-74 and a bronze age morality before your (desperately wonky) (a)moral compass kicked in?
criticising Junkyard's character flaws
On the plus side I dont hold a grudge 😛
In reality (and without wanting to condescend) I actually feel kind of sorry for the guy and it mostly stops me from diving in.
Yes that it is it is not that you are bitter from a thread from ages ago and you have had a pop
Unfortunately i neither recall the thread nor the incident but can i , hoping once more to nip this in the bud one last time, apologise for any offence i may have caused and hope they we can either move forward in friendship or in ignorance. I dont think it will be an edifying sight if we just bicker across threads because of this.
If it helps , these posts aside, I have no anger towards you so please lets just give it a rest
to do it again is madness knowing what the reaction was last time...or is it a sign of cockiness from them..
The alternative is allowing terrorists to decide what is published in a free country. You can have free speech where people are sometimes offended or you can have censorship by AK47.
One of the reasons Charlie Hebdo are at risk is because everyone else has been silenced. As John Cleese said
“The problem is if you make jokes about people who are going to kill you, there is a sort of tendency to hold back a little isn’t there?”
If everyone exercised their free speech the danger for any one person would be less.
You have friends in high places, Junkyard - I've been warned off "engaging" you.
And for the record I bear no bitterness, I simply feel everyone deserves respect regardless of their opinion or standing.
You have friends in high places, Junkyard
I think you'll find the clue in the moniker "lazarus".
He owes his very existence to a Power greater than ourselves.
🙂
Yeah, I get it now. I am but a worm...
Well that's how karma works.
Taken at face value this sentence makes sense. But thats not what you mean is it?You actually mean that the people who _drew_ things on paper are at least partly responsible for their own _murders_.
That's 24 carat victim blaming of the worst possible kind.
I find your post offensive for that reason.
Now, does my offence mean that, by your own standards, you'll have to be quiet now?
Or would I have to have an AK-74 and a bronze age morality before your (desperately wonky) (a)moral compass kicked in?
where in my posts have i said that they deserved to die?
i may not have made my point very clearly but as i have stated everyone is responsible for their own actions...therefore is i drew a cartoon and it offended someone and they attacked me i would have to accept that i take responsibility for offending that person...by the same token if someone offended me with a cartoon and i chose to shoot them then i would have to take responsibility for my actions.
why are you offended by my comments? did i insult you? but it would be ok for me to draw a cartoon taking the piss out of someone as its freedom of speech? but its not ok to criticise someone for drawing a cartoon as it would seem that i am anti-freedom of speech? or is it not ok for me to express my opinions under the freedom of speech?
it seems you are offended by my comments made under freedom of speech but CH can do what they want and offend whoever they want even though they know their chosen method is inappropriate and tasteless?
Or would I have to have an AK-74 and a bronze age morality
no a new age morality and a drone will do
Gonzy,
Not actually offended here :O)
I was just using the fact that you seem to think that other peoples degree of offendedness should be a factor in everything everyone else says and trying to express the metaphysical rabbit hole you are circling..
You say "i have stated everyone is responsible for their own actions...therefore is i drew a cartoon and it offended someone and they attacked me i would have to accept that i take responsibility for offending that person"
I still think that means that "You actually mean that the people who _drew_ things on paper are at least partly responsible for their own _murders_."
And I still think that thats victim blaming nonsense.