Three dead as woman beheaded in France

Kaybaykwah

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Thanks you just proved my point, the words you used to describe my post were very, very different.
I can see many slander cases in your future.

I think your words were more damning than his, actually.

Damn!

JP Liz V1

RIP the victims

Not enough to be fighting Covid this year but also mad loons

Amirani

deBeauvoir wrote: »

No, I just know their real intentions. Muslims hardly created a religion over 1000 years ago just for now to stave off criticism

You know the real intentions. I'm not sure what has granted you this authority to be arbiter of the sincerity of religions. While we have you though, can Scientology be considered sincere, and hence free from criticism and satire?

The French people and Government decided that satire of religion (regardless of sincerity determined by deBeauvoir) is a valid and acceptable part of their society. Do you think they should not be allowed to make this democratic assertion? Should you be the decider of this too, or someone else?

Pretzill

Tony EH wrote: »

You, literally, said it should be easy.

Not exactly - should or would - it should be easy for those who know what they're doing as I'm sure there is intelligence already working in these areas - would it be easy that I don't know.:o

Gradius

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

RIP the victims

Not enough to be fighting Covid this year but also mad loons

It's worth saying that these murderers are not mad loons.

They are precise in who they target and why they target, all ably backed up and encouraged by people of their own idealogy.

There's a line that has to be drawn on what is isolated and genuinely insane, versus a directly connected organisation and the murderers who are part of that organisation that act methodically time after time after time.

There is a mission, a stated objective, and they are achieving it while the murdered are refusing to connect the dots out of cowardice.

Snotty

Amirani wrote: »

Discrimination laws only apply to people. And as you say, religious people should be treated the same as anyone else; they should not be discriminated against.

You're not discriminating by mocking a religion. That would be blasphemy, an offence that we voted to remove from our constitution not that long ago.

So likewise its not discrimination to mock a disabled person? What is it then.

I'm actually seeing the pattern here, we'll all be very Liberal and tolerant of others but just not to things outside our own modern culture which religion definitely is.

weldoninhio

Strazdas wrote: »

How many Islamist terrorist attacks have there been in Europe in the last two years? That would tell us that the overwhelming number of the 20 million Muslims are living peacefully and are not engaged in terrorism.

The IRA carried out far more killings in Europe than Islamist terrorists have (400 estimated murders by ISIS types since 2006).

How were the main suspects of the Bataclan atrocity able to stroll around Moulenbeek without even trying to disguise themselves without fear of being reported??

Pretzill

deBeauvoir wrote: »

No, it's not! It's a sign of arrogance and a sense of superiority. Human beings do these actions to develop in-group bonding and feel better about themselves while contrasting themselves from the out-groups.

The only reason people want to mock stuff is that they are in competition with it and they want push their supremacy over society rather than living in peace with others. Be honest, you'd want to get rid of islam in Europe and have society filled only with atheists because you think it's "ultimately" the right way forward.

Absolute loon filled bollix - and trying to convince me otherwise is pointless - I'd rather live in a society that can mock religion (Was the Life of Brian an act of arrogance or just funny??) that can poke fun at itself, that can be critical - than one where people have to be careful about what they say, depict or criticise for fear of a beheading - it's ludicrous to argue anything else - regardless of what religion you are or are not, if you live in a western democracy.

deBeauvoir

Amirani wrote: »

You know the real intentions. I'm not sure what has granted you this authority to be arbiter of the sincerity of religions. While we have you though, can Scientology be considered sincere, and hence free from criticism and satire?

The French people and Government decided that satire of religion (regardless of sincerity determined by deBeauvoir) is a valid and acceptable part of their society. Do you think they should not be allowed to make this democratic assertion? Should you be the decider of this too, or someone else?

I know trumpism isn't a sincere religion because trump supporters themselves wouldn't regard it as a religion, so for them to suddenly declare themselves a religion would indicate ulterior motives.

As for the French people and Government deciding on satire of religion, of course, they can! And in due course they'll realise that it's not a productive approach to pretend to Muslims that they want an inclusive society while mocking the Muslims religion. Also, I am allow to influence discourse and try and change peoples minds. Democracy is about change after all.

jam_mac_jam

Snotty wrote: »

So likewise its not discrimination to mock a disabled person? What is it then.

I'm actually seeing the pattern here, we'll all be very Liberal and tolerant of others but just not to things outside our own modern culture which religion definitely is.

you can not mock a disabled person, that is discrimination and possibly abuse.

You can mock disability though. you can make a joke. It may be distasteful or disagree with it but you can.

Snake Plisken

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

Thanks you just proved my point, the words you used to describe my post were very, very different.
I can see many slander cases in your future.

Wow threatening legal action against the Dunne as well, is that you Dr Ali Salim?

vapor trails

Instead of overlaying the french flag over social avatars, I think a real social cause would be for everyone to display the cartoons. If boards want to ban me for free speech and pander to these murderous cult members I'll take myself elsewhere

jam_mac_jam

vapor trails wrote: »

Instead of overlaying the french flag over social avatars, I think a real social cause would be for everyone to display the cartoons. If boards want to ban me for free speech and pander to these murderous cult members I'll take myself elsewhere

I wish I had the nerve but honestly i don't.

Kaybaykwah

Amirani wrote: »

You know the real intentions. I'm not sure what has granted you this authority to be arbiter of the sincerity of religions. While we have you though, can Scientology be considered sincere, and hence free from criticism and satire?

The French people and Government decided that satire of religion (regardless of sincerity determined by deBeauvoir) is a valid and acceptable part of their society. Do you think they should not be allowed to make this democratic assertion? Should you be the decider of this too, or someone else?

Yes, and as others have stated, what makes criticism of a religious practice resolutely outside the bounds of the democratic right to free expression?

The usual targets of criticism or caricature are the authoritarian or powerful members of society. The expression of dissent, or disapproval is a safeguard against all that is potentially harmful to society.

A caricature is a powerful tool, but a whole lot less damaging than the obscure tenets of a cult that prevents people from having critical thought toward the social structures that surround them.

Caricature alone is what distinguishes our Western societies from those who impose unilateral opprobrium on critical thought vis-à-vis religious symbols or political authority. It is not a disposable tool.

Gradius

Pretzill wrote: »

Absolute loon filled bollix - and trying to convince me otherwise is pointless - I'd rather live in a society that can mock religion (Was the Life of Brian an act of arrogance or just funny??) that can poke fun at itself, that can be critical - than one where people have to be careful about what they say, depict or criticise for fear of a beheading - it's ludicrous to argue anything else - regardless of what religion you are or are not, if you live in a western democracy.

I think the person you quoted is correct to a degree.

We have countries not by chance, but by centuries and millennia of affilliation, bond and agreeability.

The natural order (and I think it's fair to call anything that old "natural") has been upset to a degree unheard of in global history.

Look at the demographics of Ireland a mere 20 years ago to now. Blink and you'd miss it.

And with those unprecedented, unwanted changes, comes the usual...the cost.

Birds of a feather flock together. Forcibly change that and you're in for a reckoning as the native population fights back against an occupying population.

Amirani

Snotty wrote: »

So likewise its not discrimination to mock a disabled person? What is it then.

I'm actually seeing the pattern here, we'll all be very Liberal and tolerant of others but just not to things outside our own modern culture which religion definitely is.

I don't think you're getting it. Nobody is suggesting you mock a Muslim person, or a disabled person. Though this would still not be "discrimination" anyway.

The majority of Irish people consider themselves religious. How you think religion is "outside our own modern culture" I dunno. I'm not sure what country you are living in.

deBeauvoir

deBeauvoir wrote: »

As for the French people and Government deciding on satire of religion, of course, they can! And in due course they'll realise that it's not a productive approach to pretend to Muslims that they want an inclusive society while mocking the Muslims religion. Also, I am allow to influence discourse and try and change peoples minds. Democracy is about change after all.

France can decide that satire of a religion can be acceptable, just as Iran can hang homosexuals on cranes so that the largest amount of people can see it happening. Countries can decide how their own domestic interests are settled.

Islamic followers can do as they like in countries which are predominately Muslim. In western countries, (which typically, have removed the power/influence that religion had from it's daily life,) we have an interest in the freedom of expression, and should not be intimidated by any religious or moral group which cannot accept those interests. If they can't accept them, they have the option to live in countries which cater to their own tastes. Just as westerners who cannot accept the laws/behaviors of countries like Iran, can stay in western nations or other nations which do match their views.

As for Democracy... it's not about change. It's simply a political system. In fact, many democracies are rather conservative and resistant to change.

Snotty

vapor trails wrote: »

Instead of overlaying the french flag over social avatars, I think a real social cause would be for everyone to display the cartoons. If boards want to ban me for free speech and pander to these murderous cult members I'll take myself elsewhere

Heard it all now, idiot.

Gradius

Snotty wrote: »

Heard it all now, idiot.

He has a definite point.

There's only so far anyone can be pushed until they push back.

If one group of people antagonise and dictate, then they better be prepared for the natural reaction.

Not that I see cartoons as anything worthwhile or effective, however it is the beginning sentiment of pushback.

I don't see the equivalence of cartoons and literal beheading murderers, but it always starts small.

deBeauvoir

Pretzill wrote: »

Absolute loon filled bollix - and trying to convince me otherwise is pointless - I'd rather live in a society that can mock religion (Was the Life of Brian an act of arrogance or just funny??) that can poke fun at itself, that can be critical - than one where people have to be careful about what they say, depict or criticise for fear of a beheading - it's ludicrous to argue anything else - regardless of what religion you are or are not, if you live in a western democracy.

Life of Brian was satire to undermine Christianity in the west and they were able to influence culture and therefore they got their wish.

People wouldn't have to worry about what they say if they were raised right. And I think, importantly it the approach that is taken that counts. Alright, draw a picture Muhammad! What an insightful criticism? Make him look stupid! Great progress! Now tell Muslims you don't hate them and want to cooperate with them and build an inclusive society with them part of it! Does all this seem productive? What have you really accomplished?

Understand this - what you define as "western democracy" has already changed and will continue to do so. Culture changes, our values change. Lots of people in the west are transforming our society, so you're not the only one who gets to decide what is our "Values"

John Frank Wilson

FyodorD wrote: »

If Trump was a poc that could nearly work

Trump is a person of colour, to be fair ! That colour being orange!

deBeauvoir

Deleted User wrote: »

France can decide that satire of a religion can be acceptable, just as Iran can hang homosexuals on cranes so that the largest amount of people can see it happening. Countries can decide how their own domestic interests are settled.

Islamic followers can do as they like in countries which are predominately Muslim. In western countries, (which typically, have removed the power/influence that religion had from it's daily life,) we have an interest in the freedom of expression, and should not be intimidated by any religious or moral group which cannot accept those interests. If they can't accept them, they have the option to live in countries which cater to their own tastes. Just as westerners who cannot accept the laws/behaviors of countries like Iran, can stay in western nations or other nations which do match their views.

As for Democracy... it's not about change. It's simply a political system. In fact, many democracies are rather conservative and resistant to change.

Democracy is determined by the people and if their attitudes and preferences change so does their country and society.

Kaybaykwah

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Life of Brian was satire to undermine Christianity in the west and they were able to influence culture and therefore they got their wish.

People wouldn't have to worry about what they say if they were raised right. And I think, importantly it the approach that is taken that counts. Alright, draw a picture Muhammad! What an insightful criticism? Make him look stupid! Great progress! Now tell Muslims you don't hate them and want to cooperate with them and build an inclusive society with them part of it! Does all this seem productive? What have you really accomplished?

Understand this - what you define as "western democracy" has already changed and will continue to do so. Culture changes, our values change. Lots of people in the west are transforming our society, so you're not the only one who gets to decide what is our "Values"

You are sidestepping and avoiding the point you should be making, which is that you can always use retort.

What possesses you to justify the killing of innocent people on behalf of an ideology?

Why is a caricature of a symbolic figure more nefarious than the attempt on human life?

jam_mac_jam

I'm not sure why France should change their values when they hold secularism as an important part of their country. Catholics are also subject to the same lack of protection.

If its the threat of violence I don't think its a great argument. They value their right to expression higher then the risk of causing offense to all religions not just Islam.

deBeauvoir

deBeauvoir wrote: »

People wouldn't have to worry about what they say if they were raised right.

err... Who gets to decide if someone was raised "right"?

And I think, importantly it the approach that is taken that counts. Alright, draw a picture Muhammad! What an insightful criticism? Make him look stupid! Great progress! Now tell Muslims you don't hate them and want to cooperate with them and build an inclusive society with them part of it! Does all this seem productive? What have you really accomplished?

So, let me get this straight. Someone draws a picture of Muhammad, in some manner that makes him look stupid... and that means that we hate Muslims? That's quite a jump in logic.

As for accomplishing anything about integration... care to show any western nation where integration of Muslims (a sizable population) has been an overwhelming success? In fact, if you look at the modern history of immigration and integration of Muslims in Europe, in spite of all the concessions made (of which there have been many), they still haven't integrated well. They still tend to congregate and form communities away from others, maintaining their culture separate to that of western nations, and more importantly, per various polls (like Gallop) show that they don't appreciate western values (such as the freedoms given to women).

Understand this - what you define as "western democracy" has already changed and will continue to do so. Culture changes, our values change. Lots of people in the west are transforming our society, so you're not the only one who gets to decide what is our "Values"

And it's in the interest of many people, myself included, who don't appreciate the way it has been encouraged to change in embracing identity politics, minority superiority, and white guilt. All that's done is weaken our societies, and create greater conflict. Now... you have the right to embrace such things, but we have the right to oppose you.

Pretzill

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Understand this - what you define as "western democracy" has already changed and will continue to do so. Culture changes, our values change. Lots of people in the west are transforming our society, so you're not the only one who gets to decide what is our "Values"

So basically you are saying put up or shut up our overlords have landed and we must assimilate - this is more bullcrap - the majority of people regardless of their religion won't put up with sick terrorist attacks in their country and neither should they have to. What has increased is lobby groups/individuals like yourself who seem to think that cultural enrichment is bending over and accepting it and you proliferate your viewpoint all over social media until you think someone somewhere will agree maybe out of fear - people who come to the western world want to live with all its freedoms - those who don't should be happy to leave. I stand up for our freedoms, and that includes the absolute freedom to shine a satirical light on religion - any of them.

deBeauvoir

deBeauvoir wrote: »

Democracy is determined by the people and if their attitudes and preferences change so does their country and society.

As I said before Democracy is a political system. Society and culture are separate. And again, there are democracies which are conservative, and resistant to change. You're reaching.

Das Reich

breezy1985 wrote: »

The French are not a minority in any French city

Had been in Paris 20 years ago and was definately not Europe. Even Rio de Janeiro (second most disgusting place I had been) didn't have the amount of homeless and was safer. Any city in Southern Brazil looks more European.

Kaybaykwah

Das Reich wrote: »

Had been in Paris 20 years ago and was definately not Europe. Even Rio de Janeiro (second most disgusting place I had been) didn't have the amount of homeless and was safer. Any city in Southern Brazil looks more European.

Bullcrap.

deBeauvoir

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

You are sidestepping and avoiding the point you should be making, which is that you can always use retort.

What possesses you to justify the killing of innocent people on behalf of an ideology?

Why is a caricature of a symbolic figure more nefarious than the attempt on human life?

I don't justify killing innocent people. But I also don't support agitating people who we are trying to include in our society. Chances are if people didn't draw a cartoon of Muhammad to provoke Muslims and instead developed relationships or just left them be this incident wouldn't have happened.

The secular atheists think society should be atheistic and they feel the need to undermine their competitors, so they come up with these methods of ridicule, which I think are cheap shots to turn people including Muslims against their own religion. And then lie and pretend they welcome Muslims into our society and that they embrace a multicultural society.