Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Three dead as woman beheaded in France

Options
1…5681011…29

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Gradius
    Registered Users Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Gradius


    440Hertz wrote: »
    I agree, you can’t just give in to volent bullies trying to push an ideology.

    This isn’t about a simple issue like your average terrorist group, often just looking for independence or fighting over tangible things like territorial disputes. Rather this is about imposing an ideology and a notion that they can impose a very odd and extreme view of Islamic law on populations that have nothing to do with them.

    If you allow yourself to be bullied into censoring everyone else to prevent an tiny and unrepresentative bunch of psychopaths, who probably live on the internet primarily, deciding to go around killing random people, you’re just empowering them and the set of taboos will extend and extend and extend.

    Man, there's bullying, and then there's beheading people in churches.

    I don't agree with simply publishing more cartoons being an adequate response.

    It's not.


  • Options
    #213
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    completedit wrote: »
    It doesn't achieve anything. It's not funny or edgy, none of our lives are better because the prophet Muhammad is depicted in a picture.
    So many aspects of life are restricted for the greater good and this is one of those cases. Ideally everything would be fair game but sometimes there will be taboos and this is one of them.

    What are you talking about? Religious satire is not restricted in France, it is very much allowed. Macron came out the other day and defended it, and a majority of French people support it.

    France as a country has decided it is fair game. This lad with the knife is the murdering law breaking scumbag, not anyone who drew a cartoon.


  • Options
    #214
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    Calling him a pedophile is a crime though. The EU agreed with the ruling too. I honestly struggle to see how anyone thinks an institution that constantly facilitates mass immigration, and restricts our freedoms, is a good one.

    Thankfully it is not a crime to say he is a paedo as long as you put the caveat "because it is documented that he had sex with a nine year old and that constitutes paedophelia"

    For some reason, that bizarre ruling was upheld because there was no nuance behind her statement.


  • Options
    #215
    Gradius
    Registered Users Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Gradius


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Thankfully it is not a crime to say he is a paedo as long as you put the caveat "because it is documented that he had sex with a nine year old and that constitutes paedophelia"

    For some reason, that bizarre ruling was upheld because there was no nuance behind her statement.

    Not picking on you particularly, but this argument about the validity or not of a cartoon, while your own people are being murdered, is NOT deserving of conversation.

    Three separate murder attempts in France, Notre Dame, Avignon and Lyon, some successful, is enough. Fook cartoons.

    It's not about that anymore. It's about a never-ending murder spree.


  • Options
    #216
    deBeauvoir
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭deBeauvoir


    Pretzill wrote: »
    Mocking religion is a sign of a nations maturity. Unfortunately it is diatribe like this which wants to pull us back towards the dark ages.

    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.

    Also, religious beliefs as just a much part of people's identities. Using "because of the way it was used historically" is just an excuse to make some people the exception to mockery.

    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Blackface is not illegal so I am not sure how we don't allow it. Maybe it would fall under harassment laws I'm not sure.

    In a democracy you have a right to offend people, you have a right to mock.

    Yes ideally we should all respect each other and be nice but part of a democracy is allowing ideas you don't like. Which includes mocking religion.

    Nobody has a right not to be offended.

    That is true! But we have a social mechanism that shame people to not do it. Mocking ideas isn't an idea, it's just a childish way of criticizing an idea usually to rub it into the faces of the people you're really criticizing and provoke them.

    I also didn't have to use blackface as an example! There are many other things we are trying to stop people from mocking and instead take different approaches to these issues. I find it an unproductive way of engagement of ideas especially at this time when we are trying to make our society more inclusive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Snotty


    The problem here is the 2 things are not related at all, someone made pictures that insulted someone and someone murdered someone, these 2 things should not be discussed in the same thread as they are not related.

    Anyone hurting someone random is deplorable, what happened in France is just a senseless act of violence and no "reasoning" should even come into it, no one did anything to cause this.

    Likewise you can think it wasn't particularly scrupulous to create cartoons of someones religious icon when they are particularly sensitive to it. I dont really see how its any different making fun of someone's religion compare to making fun of their sexual ordination, race or appearance, should you be free to make fun of anything in a democracy?


  • Options
    #218
    smellyoldboot
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭smellyoldboot


    We are well in the process of destroying everything that makes Europe great in the great desire we seem to have to replace our great cultures with primitive barbarians. And our youth are largely on board with the idea. For now. Wait till they see what's really coming guised as "doctors and engineers".

    When will we learn. We'll see wholesale ethnic warfare on this continent again before this decade is out. And we'll have the bleeding heart globalist degenerates to thank for it.


  • Options
    #219
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    completedit wrote: »
    It doesn't achieve anything. It's not funny or edgy, none of our lives are better because the prophet Muhammad is depicted in a picture.
    So many aspects of life are restricted for the greater good and this is one of those cases. Ideally everything would be fair game but sometimes there will be taboos and this is one of them.

    It's the freedom that our western democratic civilization allows. The same one that allows and supports LGBTQ rights that you clearly support as well.

    If these lunatics are so fanatical over a picture of Mohamed you can be sure they would be fanatical over seeing a same sex couple kissing or holding hands in the streets.

    Considering hundreds/thousands of years of religious persecution of certain groups of people I'd be more careful what you defend unless you want to end up as a target yourself.
    Snotty wrote: »
    The problem here is the 2 things are not related at all, someone made pictures that insulted someone and someone murdered someone, these 2 things should not be discussed in the same thread as they are not related.

    Anyone hurting someone random is deplorable, what happened in France is just a senseless act of violence and no "reasoning" should even come into it, no one did anything to cause this.

    Likewise you can think it wasn't particularly scrupulous to create cartoons of someones religious icon when they are particularly sensitive to it. I dont really see how its any different making fun of someone's religion compare to making fun of their sexual ordination, race or appearance, should you be free to make fun of anything in a democracy?

    Religion is a choice unlike any of the other things you listed so yes it is fair game.


  • Options
    #220
    jam_mac_jam
    Registered Users Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭jam_mac_jam


    Snotty wrote: »
    The problem here is the 2 things are not related at all, someone made pictures that insulted someone and someone murdered someone, these 2 things should not be discussed in the same thread as they are not related.

    Anyone hurting someone random is deplorable, what happened in France is just a senseless act of violence and no "reasoning" should even come into it, no one did anything to cause this.

    Likewise you can think it wasn't particularly scrupulous to create cartoons of someones religious icon when they are particularly sensitive to it. I dont really see how its any different making fun of someone's religion compare to making fun of their sexual ordination, race or appearance, should you be free to make fun of anything in a democracy?

    Yes you can mock someone's race appearance or sexual orientation. Or the government or anything. You should be able to mock anything.


  • Options
    #221
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Gradius wrote: »
    Not picking on you particularly, but this argument about the validity or not of a cartoon, while your own people are being murdered, is NOT deserving of conversation.

    Three separate murder attempts in France, Notre Dame, Avignon and Lyon, some successful, is enough. Fook cartoons.

    It's not about that anymore. It's about a never-ending murder spree.


    Oh I agree. **** cartoons. I was speaking to people who are implicitly laying the blame on westerners for insulting the jihadi ****.

    There is no excusing these *****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,914 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    The sacristan who was killed was a young man RIP. I imagined him being a lot older, not that it makes a difference, but it is shocking just the same

    https://www.nicematin.com/faits-divers/il-aidait-il-servait-il-donnait-qui-etait-vincent-loques-lune-des-trois-victimes-de-lattentat-de-nice-a-la-basilique-notre-dame-595238

    The blurb under his picture says " A very kind man, very devoted to his church. A man of faith. Sacrificed this Thursday morning by a fanatic".


  • Options
    #223
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    jam_mac_jam wrote: »
    Yes you can mock someone's race appearance or sexual orientation. Or the government or anything. You should be able to mock anything.

    You should be free to mock everything or else you are free to mock nothing.


  • Options
    #224
    Gradius
    Registered Users Posts: 1,224 ✭✭✭Gradius


    Snotty wrote: »
    The problem here is the 2 things are not related at all, someone made pictures that insulted someone and someone murdered someone, these 2 things should not be discussed in the same thread as they are not related.

    Anyone hurting someone random is deplorable, what happened in France is just a senseless act of violence and no "reasoning" should even come into it, no one did anything to cause this.

    Likewise you can think it wasn't particularly scrupulous to create cartoons of someones religious icon when they are particularly sensitive to it. I dont really see how its any different making fun of someone's religion compare to making fun of their sexual ordination, race or appearance, should you be free to make fun of anything in a democracy?

    I agree with you about the conversations on cartoons. It's over.

    There is a seemingly never-ending supply of barbarous murderers at large in France and the entire focus should only be on stopping it all. Point blank.

    Where I disagree with you is that these are "senseless", "random" and (paraphrase) "reasonless".

    They are senseful. These murders are committed with an absolute sense, no matter how removed from reasonable it may be to you or me.

    They are not random, they are highly specific. These murderers target Europeans, not their own. They tend to target places associated with europe, like Christian churches. They are murders committed to explicitly make a very, very specific statement.

    They are not reasonless. To keep to the one point, a prime minister stated publicly "it is okay to kill millions of french people". There is method to it, there is an audience for it, there is a message to be made, there is a unified statement behind the messages. It is not random, it is clinical in precision of it's delivery.

    It's purposeful.


  • Options
    #225
    ThewhiteJesus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭ThewhiteJesus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh I agree. **** cartoons. I was speaking to people who are implicitly laying the blame on westerners for insulting the jihadi ****.

    There is no excusing these *****.

    Just to be clear, noone in the thread actually used those words that thedunne likes to make up.


  • Options
    #226
    Kaybaykwah
    Registered Users Posts: 3,117 ✭✭✭Kaybaykwah


    Gradius wrote: »
    Man, there's bullying, and then there's beheading people in churches.

    I don't agree with simply publishing more cartoons being an adequate response.

    It's not.



    Yes, but you know, it's not just cartoons. If I were painting the nudes I am doing in Algeria, the authorities would probably want to cut my hand off. When you look at the real issues, the compromising nature of political control over a population with the tool of religious authority, you begin to respect the importance of critical thought, and expression.


  • Options
    #227
    Rezident
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Rezident


    So we tolerate Islam cutting peoples' heads off, among other things, because it is a "religion"? The more I look at Islam, it is not clear to me that it is, in fact, a religion. Religions appear to have free will at their core, so if you are a Buddhist or a Christian or a Rastafarian or whatever, you are free to leave, it must be based on belief and free will, otherwise it's just a totalitarian dictatorship that you cannot leave, like North Korea, that is based on coercion.

    Since apostasy is punishable (by death) in Islam, does that mean that Islam is not, in fact, a religion, but rather a cult? And can we ban cults (starting with the ones that cut peoples' heads off over cartoons)?


  • Options
    #228
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,838 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    So according to the apologists narrative about offense, if they are consistent with their beliefs that is, if Trump supporters decide to create a religion tomorrow, with Donald being the prophet of course, criticism of Trump should end because it would offend his supporters.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #229
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ThewhiteJesus wrote: »
    Just to be clear, noone in the thread actually used those words that thedunne likes to make up.

    Any discussion of how western people shouldn't depict Mohammad so to spare the feelings of Muslims is implicitly saying it.

    Your words explicitly stated, while it doesn't excuse murder, it's asking for trouble.

    Nobody was asking for trouble. Drawing pictures isn't asking for trouble.

    Some other people were saying we shouldn't be insulting towards religions.

    I'm saying we should if we want to.

    We should not fear for our lives over any of this. We can't and shouldn't bend the knee to savages.


  • Options
    #230
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    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).
    Jesus Christ. A Tunisian man shouting Allahu Akbar decapitates a woman and murders two other innocent people in a church in France.
    BUT .................... The IRA.

    Same pathetic response we keep hearing every time a Muslim murders innocent people in Western Europe.


  • Options
    #231
    Snotty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,298 ✭✭✭Snotty


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Religion is a choice unlike any of the other things you listed so yes it is fair game.

    Religion is one of the 7 types of discrimination, i wouldn't believe in religion/god myself but i can respect that someone else might believe in it and it should be treated in the same way as the rest of the discrimination categories, like race or disability.
    If someone has spent their whole live believing in God and wouldn't themselves consider it a choice but rather their belief, is it any different than how sexual orientation was considered years ago i.e. their own choice?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    deBeauvoir wrote: »
    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.

    I take it you haven't gone to see stand up comedy before?

    Also, satire is generally the exact opposite of what you suggest. It is mocking the powerful; typically political and ideological movements etc. So yeah, your assertion that there is only one reason people want to mock stuff is bull**** to be frank.


  • Options
    #233
    Rezident
    Registered Users Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭Rezident


    So we tolerate Islam as it is a religion. But is it really? Religions appear to be based on choice and free will, if you are a Buddhist or a Christian or a Rastafarian or whatever, you are free to go. Otherwise it's a totalitarian regime like North Korea, based on coercion.

    Since leaving Islam is forbidden, by law (apostasy is punishable by death in Islam), does that mean that Islam is not in fact a true religion, and rather a cult? And shouldn't dangerous cults be banned?


  • Options
    #234
    BloodBath
    Registered Users Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    Snotty wrote: »
    Religion is one of the 7 types of discrimination, i wouldn't believe in religion/god myself but i can respect that someone else might believe in it and it should be treated in the same way as the rest of the discrimination categories, like race or disability.
    If someone has spent their whole live believing in God and wouldn't themselves consider it a choice but rather their belief, is it any different than how sexual orientation was considered years ago i.e. their own choice?

    If someone has been brainwashed their whole life into supporting an evil organization then yes they deserve to be mocked. I don't equate it to sexual orientation at all. You are attracted to whatever you are attracted to and that's outside of your control.

    You have your whole life to learn about religions and originations that represent these religions. I was born and raised catholic but the more I learned about the RCC and it's history the more I realized I couldn't possibly support such evil. That's a choice.


  • Options
    #235
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Snotty wrote: »
    Religion is one of the 7 types of discrimination, i wouldn't believe in religion/god myself but i can respect that someone else might believe in it and it should be treated in the same way as the rest of the discrimination categories, like race or disability.
    If someone has spent their whole live believing in God and wouldn't themselves consider it a choice but rather their belief, is it any different than how sexual orientation was considered years ago i.e. their own choice?

    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.


  • Options
    #236
    deBeauvoir
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭deBeauvoir


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    So according to the apologists narrative about offense, if they are consistent with their beliefs that is, if Trump supporters decide to create a religion tomorrow, with Donald being the prophet of course, criticism of Trump should end because it would offend his supporters.

    That is already a religion. The problem is their religious leader is already in charge of a country so criticism can still apply and he has a direct effect on people's livelihoods. Secondly, I wouldn't take it as a sincere religion but as a cover to avoid criticism


  • Options
    #237
    ThewhiteJesus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭ThewhiteJesus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Any discussion of how western people shouldn't depict Mohammad so to spare the feelings of Muslims is implicitly saying it.

    Your words explicitly stated, while it doesn't excuse murder, it's asking for trouble.

    Nobody was asking for trouble. Drawing pictures isn't asking for trouble.

    Some other people were saying we shouldn't be insulting towards religions.

    I'm saying we should if we want to.

    We should not fear for our lives over any of this. We can't and shouldn't bend the knee to savages.

    Again, completely missing the point of my post.
    You see and read what you like dunne, there's no fact or logic to any of it.
    Instead of making up words and sentences why not actually quote the person ?
    You might actually come across a bit better.


  • Options
    #238
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ThewhiteJesus wrote: »
    Again, completely missing the point of my post.
    You see and read what you like dunne, there's no fact or logic to any of it.
    Instead of making up words and sentences why not actually quote the person ?
    You might actually come across a bit better.

    ok
    ThewhiteJesus wrote: »
    it's awful, but then i completely disagree with showing pictures of Mohammed when it's a clearly a very personal and upsetting thing for any muslim to see. Why purposely try upset people, it's only one image and plenty of ways around it.

    Does it mean it's ok to murder, of course not but it's looking for trouble imo


  • Options
    #239
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    deBeauvoir wrote: »
    That is already a religion. The problem is their religious leader is already in charge of a country so criticism can still apply and he has a direct effect on people's livelihoods. Secondly, I wouldn't take it as a sincere religion but as a cover to avoid criticism

    So you personally get to decide what religions are serious and which ones you are allowed to mock. Why is it you who gets to make this decision for everyone else?


  • Options
    #240
    ThewhiteJesus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,714 ✭✭✭ThewhiteJesus


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ok

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    deBeauvoir
    Registered Users Posts: 21 ✭deBeauvoir


    Amirani wrote: »
    So you personally get to decide what religions are serious and which ones you are allowed to mock. Why is it you who gets to make this decision for everyone else?

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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement