"Muslim" terrorists attack French magazine in Paris

I believe there are several different ones – all of which must be special as they’ve sold more copies than anything by J K Rowling.

A bit of a flippant question, really, just needed it clarifying.

I’m not religious or offended by that comment but knowing what I know of Cougar I would have said that there was a slight dig or ‘laugh at their expense’ in there with the word ‘special’. I think in light of the point some are attempting to make, the word ‘book’ would have sufficed.

I’m probably way off or whatever – but I was just sayin’…

Edit : And you’ve responded. Thanks for clarifying. Slow typist alert!

Call me old fashioned, but I’m not sure that I’d agree that a spot of light firebombing is a reasonable response to a newspaper reprinting a couple of cartoons.

I must be old fashioned too.

I’m not religious or offended by that comment but knowing what I know of Cougar I would have said that there was a slight dig or ‘laugh at their expense’ in there with the word ‘special’. I think in light of the point some are attempting to make, the word ‘book’ would have sufficed.

Most of Monty Python was laughing at religions expense.

Monty Python is socially unacceptable now?

No. That’s not my point.

Edit : Although it is, kind of. Like I wrote, I’m not offended, just pointing out that some might take that as a piss take.

A bit of a flippant question, really,

I’d never have guessed 😉

Re: firebombing

Which is a reaction most people would find not too unreasonable.

What ?

Are you some sort of lunatic.

I’d never have guessed

🙂

Well, y’know. It’s raining and there’s nowt to do…

if we were to afford special protection in law to ban the drawing of an image this would surely lead a) to Islam wanting other things protecting and b) every other religion wanting their own religious trappings protecting as well. The Daily Mail and their red-topped friends would explode about creeping Sharia Law and the Islamification of Britain, and UKIP would think all their non-denominative winter festivals had come at once.

Lucky no-one has at any point suggested that then eh. How many times is this particular straw man going to get wheeled out? He’s getting very tatty and ragged-looking.

there’s nowt to do…

There’s always something to do. All this furore keeps bringing Mind Bomb into my head – who’d have thought that was 30 years ago eh?

It’s called a Kosher supermarket in the same way as is a Halal one. It carries products which comply with that food code. You don’t refer to it as Jewish or Muslim.

@Pembo, personally I do find it unreasonable you would firebomb a newspaper for publishing cartoons.

We shall see what Charlie Hebdo produces, the attack means a print run of 1 million instead of 60,000 so many more people will see cartoons of the Prophet than would have done prior to the attack

All this furore keeps bringing Mind Bomb into my head – who’d have thought that was 30 years ago eh?

Good call – that’s going on straight away.

And yeah, bang up to date. Scary…

Lucky no-one has at any point suggested that then eh. How many times is this particular straw man going to get wheeled out? He’s getting very tatty and ragged-looking.

I really fail to see why you were even disagreeing with Binners, seeing as he finds the Charlie Hebdo images distasteful?

Scary…

Absolutely.

Is there a special Jewish Police force in London?

Is there anything similar for any other religions?

They aren’t actually police though are the Jivehoney.

An interesting side point I will add, is that the Shomrim are actually managing to diffuse Jewish and Muslim tension by protecting Muslim homes and businesses in London as well.

Although I really, really disagree with the fact they even exist.

Grum its a slippery slope argument as if Charlie is the gateway drug to totalitarianism

Its possible to criticise Islam and chose to not do it via the medium of cartoons. Some would call it a compromise though for our extremists lovers of freedom of speech its all or nothing with the all being the unhindered right to be an offensive so and so for all will be lost of we say hey lets all be nice to each other.

Same argument was said , no doubt, when we had to stop insulting the gays and the blacks and the Mail was probably just as annoyed then.

I would say that car is illegal, definitely designed to give the impression of being a police car.

I would say that car is illegal, definitely designed to give the impression of being a police car.

As jivebunny would say, do some research 😉

Lucky no-one has at any point suggested that then eh. How many times is this particular straw man going to get wheeled out?

Lucky I didn’t say anyone here had. You know, I’m pretty sure there’s a name for concocting a false argument in order to attack it, but I can’t quite put my finger on it…

It is about the law though, even if just indirectly by association. It has to be. Gonzy and maybe others have been talking about things that are “strictly off limits;” how else do you police things that are strictly off limits? Free lollipops to all the good boys and girls?

And if it’s not about the law then it’s about moral code, about having the moral fibre not to be unpleasant to your fellow man. That’s all we’ve got left. But you can’t demand that people are excellent to each other (unless Religion), you have to ask nicely and respectfully, maybe even educate people if they don’t actually realise how much they’re upsetting others. Civilised people have adult conversations, they don’t turn up with **** heavy weaponry.

Any other options I’ve missed here?

Is there a special Jewish Police force in London?

No.

Is there anything similar for any other religions?

No.

Lucky I didn’t say anyone here had.

So who were you arguing against then? No-one? Seems a bit pointless.

Gonzy and maybe others have been talking about things that are “strictly off limits;”

I think most people would consider it ‘strictly off-limits’ to, IDK – cheat on your wife with your friend’s 16 year old daughter. Perfectly legal though.

And given that it’s perfectly legal we should vehemently defend every man’s fundamental right to do exactly that, because to do anything else is flying in the face of every principle of liberal democracy that we hold dear.

In a roundabout way, we have already defended every mans fundamental right to do just that.

It’s not illegal, because we have specifically made it legal.

We haven’t campaigned to make it illegal (as a society)

And other than a row with his wife and his mate, nothing else happens if he does it.

The divide and conquer strategy has a time served propensity for distraction – The Magna Carta is being retrofitted as we speak in accordance with ensuing banking legislation and trade reforms – Meanwhile folk want to wax lyrical about the dangers of contrived fundamentalism.. Seems like the ‘great game’ is going to plan .. We all need to come together on the issues that impinge upon our birth rights – Freedom of Speech should be taken as a given – it’s not a privilege granted to us by the state .. As long as an individual or group is not directly calling for violence or harm directly then it’s his,hers or their call if they wish to be construed as ‘offensive’ – Offending groups or individuals is not a criminal act….

In a roundabout way, we have already defended every mans fundamental right to do just that.

It’s not illegal, because we have specifically made it legal.

We haven’t campaigned to make it illegal (as a society)

And other than a row with his wife and his mate, nothing else happens if he does it.

I guarantee you many people on here (and elsewhere) would see it as perfectly acceptable for the girl’s father to go and beat the other guy up in that scenario. You’d probably get various internet hard men on here saying they would kill their mate if they did that to their daughter.

My point is – there’s lots of things that are legal but not morally acceptable to most people or to be encouraged/applauded. Many people on here and elsewhere have been applauding things which are morally reprehensible. Saying ‘I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it in a free society’ is different to saying ‘I’m 100% with you’. That’s the clear implication of saying ‘je suis Charlie’.

binners argument of ‘only the law can decide what’s ok as a society’ is patently nonsense.

As jivebunny would say, do some research

About what? A private security company is not legally allowed to mimic the police livery on their cars, that is way too close to actual police cars to be accidental, and I note that they say their guards have undergone police training (?), it seems they are trying very hard to pretend to be a sanctioned private police force.

But you can’t demand that people are excellent to each other (unless Religion)

You may wish to check the equality legislation to see if we can demand this [ and not just of religion]

knowing what I know of Cougar I would have said that there was a slight dig or ‘laugh at their expense’ in there with the word ‘special’.

Sorry, I missed this. No dig was intended, FWIW. Appropriately enough given the discussion, I’m trying to stop doing that as it’s not nice. I was rarely serious in the first place but that’s not the point.

So who were you arguing against then? No-one? Seems a bit pointless.

Who said I was arguing? I’m taking part in a discussion, last I checked. Is that not good enough?

I think most people would consider it ‘strictly off-limits’ to, IDK – cheat on your wife with your friend’s 16 year old daughter. Perfectly legal though.

But not all, clearly, or it’d never happen. So the question then becomes, who defines those limits? Do I get to demand that you can’t cheat on your wife because it offends my moral code?

And given that it’s perfectly legal we should vehemently defend every man’s fundamental right to do exactly that, because to do anything else is flying in the face of every principle of liberal democracy that we hold dear.

You’re either not listening or being deliberately obtuse now. We should “vehemently defend every man’s fundamental right to [be able to] do exactly that,” of course we should; that doesn’t mean that what he’s doing has to be socially acceptable too, or that it’s a right and just thing to do.

This isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s a freedom issue. We’re free to act like dicks if we so choose, because we don’t live in a society which has criminalised immorality.

You may wish to check the equality legislation to see if we can demand this

I’m not intimately familiar with the equality legislation but I’d have thought that it would legislate that I treat people, well, equally. Is excellence an actual requirement or if I treat everyone equally badly will that do?

(Semi-genuine question, I don’t actually know)

binners argument of ‘only the law can decide what’s ok as a society’ is patently nonsense

The law is quite often there to protect the rights of the individual from society.

You’re indirectly advocating mob rule.

Did you miss this paragraph Cougar or just ignore it because you couldn’t think of an argument against it?

My point is – there’s lots of things that are legal but not morally acceptable to most people or to be encouraged/applauded. Many people on here and elsewhere have been applauding things which are morally reprehensible. Saying ‘I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it in a free society’ is different to saying ‘I’m 100% with you’. That’s the clear implication of saying ‘je suis Charlie’.

Because it’s already answered this bit.

You’re either not listening or being deliberately obtuse now. We should “vehemently defend every man’s fundamental right to [be able to] do exactly that,” of course we should; that doesn’t mean that what he’s doing has to be socially acceptable too, or that it’s a right and just thing to do.

This isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s a freedom issue. We’re free to act like dicks if we so choose, because we don’t live in a society which has criminalised immorality.

Did you miss this paragraph

I didn’t particularly see as it merited a response, but if you insist,

Many people on here and elsewhere have been applauding things which are morally reprehensible.

Have they? I didn’t think so. We’re applauding the right, the freedom to be able to do these things, not the acts themselves. Big difference, and kinda my point. And seemingly what you’re saying too if I’m reading the rest of that paragraph correctly, so I’m not quite sure why you still think this is an argument. We appear to be vehemently agreeing with each other.

You cannot treat all gay people and all women equally badly and comply
FWIW it can be a defence in sex discrimination [ at work case of “bastard to all” ie they treat men , women, gay people, black people etc very badly so its fair.

“vehemently defend every man’s fundamental right to [be able to] do exactly that,” of course we should; that doesn’t mean that what he’s doing has to be socially acceptable too, or that it’s a right and just thing to do.

So we defend their right to do things we all agree is not an acceptable t a..does not make sense

This isn’t a freedom of speech issue, it’s a freedom issue. We’re free to act like dicks if we so choose, because we don’t live in a society which has criminalised immorality.

Again it really depends on the, bashing gays, abusing black people etc.
You cannot just say these absolutes as they are not absolutes and an example to counter it can always be cited. THEY ARE NOT ABSOLUTES.
FWIW i think the whole point of the law is to criminalise the things we consider immoral.

I wonder if the pro-Charlie posters in thread might have been a bit more forgiving if the terrorists had used swords..?

So we defend their right to do things we all agree is not an acceptable t a..does not make sense

Over the age of consent people should be free to pursue any relationship of their choosing, if you think that it is weird to defend this then can I point you in the direction of gay relationships. It is precisely because of enlightened libertarian thinking that these are now allowed.

Have they? I didn’t think so. We’re applauding the right, the freedom to be able to do these things, not the acts themselves. Big difference, and kinda my point.

binners was praising them for being pretty good at satire, until he actually saw some of their cartoons and realised how racist they were. Many others have been saying ‘what’s wrong with depicting the prophet, why are they getting so upset’ etc – seemingly oblivious to the fact that that was part of a pattern of unpleasant racist goading.

Saying ‘je suis Charlie’ goes beyond simply supporting free speech and implies support of the message of CH, IMO.

And seemingly what you’re saying too if I’m reading the rest of that paragraph correctly, so I’m not quite sure why you still think this is an argument. We appear to be vehemently agreeing with each other.

Nope. It’s a subtle but crucial difference between saying ‘I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it’ and saying ‘yeah go you – say it again, and again and again’. It seems to be too subtle a distinction for many.

Further violence this afternoon.. this time in Dublin

I trust Fox News have been alerted?

just pointing out that some might take that as a piss take.

What’s left in life if we can’t take the piss?

I wonder if the pro-Charlie posters in thread might have been a bit more forgiving if the terrorists had used swords..?

What does it matter what weapon is used to murder someone?

I wonder if the pro-Charlie posters in thread might have been a bit more forgiving if the terrorists had used swords..?

Pro-Charlie? There’s a distinct difference between that and supporting Charlie Hebdo’s right to free speech or expression.

binners was praising them for being pretty good at satire, until he actually saw some of their cartoons and realised how racist they were.

So he was praising them until he revised his belief in what they were doing when he recieved more information? Seems reasonable to me. If he’d carried on championing them whilst believing they were racist then you’d have a point.

It’s a subtle but crucial difference

Is there anyone actually asserting the latter though? Must be so subtle a difference that I missed it if so.

This is timely, perhaps:

A French leftist who has read Hebdo for years educates those who discovered it three days ago:

Full text is here, http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/olivier-tonneau/110115/charlie-hebdo-letter-my-british-friends

@Nealglover “It quoted a police spokeswoman as saying that the editorial team should be able to continue work in the building as the damage was relatively minor.”

Hardly the towering inferno, but go ahead, knock yourself out and misquote me.

So it’s ok to firebomb somewhere so long as we only firebomb it a bit? Glad we cleared that up.

It’s a good job they cleverly designed their projectile weapons to only cause minimal damage, hey.