LetltB
@LetltB
12 Years5,000+ Posts
Comments: 1 · Posts: 9186 · Topics: 179
Shooting in Paris (Page 5)
You are on page out of 7 | Reverse Order
I asked earlier what's the Gain from these deaths? If that can be answered, maybe a reasonable solution will follow? Common sense is being ignored, clearly that's not practiced in France.
I guess it's up to the survivors of this attack who are currently scurrying to get the new issue of the paper out with the next hate message, maybe a rinse and repeat of a spray of bullets, bombs etc...that will follow?? Apparently more innocent people have to die for them to stop and think.
Like I said...it's far enough away from me, and their problem.
I guess it's up to the survivors of this attack who are currently scurrying to get the new issue of the paper out with the next hate message, maybe a rinse and repeat of a spray of bullets, bombs etc...that will follow?? Apparently more innocent people have to die for them to stop and think.
Like I said...it's far enough away from me, and their problem.
Posted by Innuendo
You shouldn't give America such a bad reputation by saying it's far enough away from you and their problem. France is just as important as America, and we are all equally human. Muslim and all we are the same, just see a different world.
You have to take others into consideration, and karma has prove this time after time.
What happened recently in France has nothing to do with America.
We are all the same, unfortunately there are people/groups out there who refuse to see it that way and choose to HATE instead.
Posted by GetMistedPosted by LetltB
I asked earlier what's the Gain from these deaths? If that can be answered, maybe a reasonable solution will follow? Common sense is being ignored, clearly that's not practiced in France.
I guess it's up to the survivors of this attack who are currently scurrying to get the new issue of the paper out with the next hate message, maybe a rinse and repeat of a spray of bullets, bombs etc...that will follow?? Apparently more innocent people have to die for them to stop and think.
Like I said...it's far enough away from me, and their problem.
So basically.. We're at a stalemate.click to expand
I don't see our government rushing over to help a French racist group. Not by a long shot.
I read a little while ago, the survivors of the shooting are scrambling to get that next edition of hate out. Maybe they want a 9/11 over there? Maybe they will comprehend who it is they are screwing with? I don't know, your guess is as good as mine. Can stupidity be measured?
Posted by LetltBPosted by Montgomery
Makes one wonder why the offended Muslim parties didn't follow
the law and do the same, when seeking "damages"--
The last time they sued was almost a decade ago (2006, 2007)-- but it wasn't for
HATE, as you put it.
They sued because they thought no one should be able to draw the Prophet
because it was against their religion.
The research I did earlier, regarding that ^^the Grand Mosque, the Muslim World League and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF) sued the paper and it was based on racism...another form of "HATE". Not just about drawing the Prophet.
The paper was warned by politicians to stop as well. Charlie boy decided not to.
We now have 16 dead people, many of them innocent, because spreading HATE was above all a priority and profit. Speaks volumes.
click to expand
As though oppression (and vigilantism) is NOT hate.
They had to pursue justice through the proper legal channels,
and possibly to another country on the twitter case.
So... what was your point, exactly, in posting that?
Posted by DwellingOnMove
"fight fear with knowledge."
reminds me of "alone across the ocean".
😱
Amazing.
Lib, Seraph..
In those cops topics you both stated plenty of times you will obey the reasoning of law, even if it conflicts with personal beliefs. I agree with that too. LIB, you went as far as saying that if someone doesn't respect a ruling of law, they can get the fuck out of the country. I agree with you completely. If you don't find yourself in a majority in a country where the majority passess laws, you are free to go elsewhere.
Following that line of thought, it was decreed in a court of law in France that the magazine is satire and there is no evil intent behind it to justify the posibility of hate speech. As a result, assuming those people judged on law as opposed with us just judging on our beliefs, isn't it only fair that everyone respects that and follows their own advice? Because if you don't, then you only agree with the law when it mirrors your beliefs.
Those politicians that you said opposed the verdict...still are not above law. As an interesting idea, their own president defended the magazine and he was ridiculed in it plenty of times. Maybe, just maybe, the French people understand satire better than you? And it's within their right to judge it according to their laws. With or without snappy passive aggressive comments towards their nation and the things they stand for.
In those cops topics you both stated plenty of times you will obey the reasoning of law, even if it conflicts with personal beliefs. I agree with that too. LIB, you went as far as saying that if someone doesn't respect a ruling of law, they can get the fuck out of the country. I agree with you completely. If you don't find yourself in a majority in a country where the majority passess laws, you are free to go elsewhere.
Following that line of thought, it was decreed in a court of law in France that the magazine is satire and there is no evil intent behind it to justify the posibility of hate speech. As a result, assuming those people judged on law as opposed with us just judging on our beliefs, isn't it only fair that everyone respects that and follows their own advice? Because if you don't, then you only agree with the law when it mirrors your beliefs.
Those politicians that you said opposed the verdict...still are not above law. As an interesting idea, their own president defended the magazine and he was ridiculed in it plenty of times. Maybe, just maybe, the French people understand satire better than you? And it's within their right to judge it according to their laws. With or without snappy passive aggressive comments towards their nation and the things they stand for.
Seraph, nowhere in your common sense speeches did you ever bring up intent or the proportion between action and reaction, which are both principles according to which we discuss crimes. No matter how many times you bring up the cluelessness and general lack of common sense of those people, you still cannot show the INTENT to harm was there. And you also never addressed the difference between the action and the reaction. A reaction is only warranted in the confines of the action that created it. To put it plainly, you'll see no one defending a guy who jumps at you with a knife when you insulted him verbally. That reaction is unjust because it's comparatively a higher threat than a verbal insult. Maybe if we can keep this in mind we can see common sense goes both ways here.
Oh and a history lesson for you too LIB. History is tricky like that because you can check for any time frame to bring up a point. In your case, you brought up world war 1.
Let me take you a bit back..to the mid 17th century til the mid 18th century:
Europe (especially France, Italy and Germany): The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1650s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by "philosophes" and local thinkers in urban coffeehouses, salons and masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, such as the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism.
The US: "Umm, do you think I have enough slaves for this winter?"
^Check that century and you will see I am right. So arguably one of those continents had more experience with freedom and rights than the other.
That's the thing with history, you can't bring only one moment up because it fits your agenda. Other people can bring other moments and we will all spin in circles. I wouldn't judge people nowadays based on their nation's past. Just goes to show you there is always a flipside on every coin you toss.
Let me take you a bit back..to the mid 17th century til the mid 18th century:
Europe (especially France, Italy and Germany): The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1650s to the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis and individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by "philosophes" and local thinkers in urban coffeehouses, salons and masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, such as the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism.
The US: "Umm, do you think I have enough slaves for this winter?"
^Check that century and you will see I am right. So arguably one of those continents had more experience with freedom and rights than the other.
That's the thing with history, you can't bring only one moment up because it fits your agenda. Other people can bring other moments and we will all spin in circles. I wouldn't judge people nowadays based on their nation's past. Just goes to show you there is always a flipside on every coin you toss.
One more tasteless comment on my behalf and I am out of this topic. I agree with the ruling of the magazine as satire so there's no point for me to keep emphasizing my points. You're free to classify it as hate speech and warranted if it happens in the US and Canada, we all have different law systems in the end. But as far as Europe goes, it's not hate speech and no amount of common sense or lack thereof can be used as justification for violence (unless and only unless you can prove intention to harm. Since the magazine never followed satire with a direct action to lobby for oppressing laws to ostracize every category of people they mocked..it's not intent. after all language is important but the action you take with it is more important and there was none other than the action a pen makes on a paper while drawing)
Let me pain an image on my way out. I'm not a good cartoonist so I'll just use my words.
You travel with your family to Plaza Navona in Rome (it's a huge public square were artists draw caricatures for a couple of euros) and you decide to have your family and you imortalized for eternity. You're pretty aware of your physical imperfections and you have a good sense of self. As soon as the painter stops and shows you the portrait, a wave of shock washes over you. Is that mole over your cheek that fucking big? Did your wife put on that much weight? Look at her, how disgracious she looks all of a sudden. You try to laugh but something seems so wrong. Yet you are a man of common sense. You wouldn't insult the cartoonist just for doing his job. You'd like to say something, maybe crack a joke ar your expense but you're reminded you're full of common sense and you're not the type to offend or even disagree with someone. You never offended anyone in your life. You carefully tiptoed around egg shells. What if he punches you and all those egg shells around you will be gone..like tears in the rain. Then suddenly, heart attack. As you fall backwards you feel the shame of your body crushing the pretty egg shells. You cracked those egg shells man, you're going straight to hell in a marshmallow basket. But have no fear, there's a Lion image on the sky nodding at you and congratulating you for doing the common sense thing. It's peaceful..never having the strength of your convictions or having the option to debate them. Never having to develop an individual nonviolent mindset..after all heaven will welcome all the righteous and the common sense people.
Let me pain an image on my way out. I'm not a good cartoonist so I'll just use my words.
You travel with your family to Plaza Navona in Rome (it's a huge public square were artists draw caricatures for a couple of euros) and you decide to have your family and you imortalized for eternity. You're pretty aware of your physical imperfections and you have a good sense of self. As soon as the painter stops and shows you the portrait, a wave of shock washes over you. Is that mole over your cheek that fucking big? Did your wife put on that much weight? Look at her, how disgracious she looks all of a sudden. You try to laugh but something seems so wrong. Yet you are a man of common sense. You wouldn't insult the cartoonist just for doing his job. You'd like to say something, maybe crack a joke ar your expense but you're reminded you're full of common sense and you're not the type to offend or even disagree with someone. You never offended anyone in your life. You carefully tiptoed around egg shells. What if he punches you and all those egg shells around you will be gone..like tears in the rain. Then suddenly, heart attack. As you fall backwards you feel the shame of your body crushing the pretty egg shells. You cracked those egg shells man, you're going straight to hell in a marshmallow basket. But have no fear, there's a Lion image on the sky nodding at you and congratulating you for doing the common sense thing. It's peaceful..never having the strength of your convictions or having the option to debate them. Never having to develop an individual nonviolent mindset..after all heaven will welcome all the righteous and the common sense people.
^The fact that I can paint that image (totally unfunny and in poor taste mind you) and none of you people can crawl through the monitor like a very cheap Ring knock-off and strangle me to death...is what makes life worth living and freedom of speech worth experiencing. Then again the cartoonists did it wrong..true satire would have flown over anyone's head so if they would've been any good at it, no harm would've come to them.
Taking my own advice here. Everything I said in this topic fades away in importance to a ruling based on law. I have to respect that 🙂, even if it went against what I believed.
Sorry if I truly offended anyone. Satire of ideas is only satire of ideas for me..it would never translate in a judgment against a human being where I assign character traits based on stereotypes. As with everything, every person is a case by case scenario for me.
Thank you for giving food for my thoughts everyone who replied, including everyone who disagreed. I take away a more rounded mindset from this.
K, I'm out 🙂
Taking my own advice here. Everything I said in this topic fades away in importance to a ruling based on law. I have to respect that 🙂, even if it went against what I believed.
Sorry if I truly offended anyone. Satire of ideas is only satire of ideas for me..it would never translate in a judgment against a human being where I assign character traits based on stereotypes. As with everything, every person is a case by case scenario for me.
Thank you for giving food for my thoughts everyone who replied, including everyone who disagreed. I take away a more rounded mindset from this.
K, I'm out 🙂
Lib, loved that quote and the song. I'm not being sarcastic, I enjoyed it.
One for you too:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
(wrongfully accredited to Voltaire, the person behind the quote is the woman who did his biography - Evelyn Beatrice Hall. It represents his life's work and philosophy)
Now I said my peace.
One for you too:
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
(wrongfully accredited to Voltaire, the person behind the quote is the woman who did his biography - Evelyn Beatrice Hall. It represents his life's work and philosophy)
Now I said my peace.
Posted by Montgomery
As though oppression (and vigilantism) is NOT hate.
They had to pursue justice through the proper legal channels,
and possibly to another country on the twitter case.
So... what was your point, exactly, in posting that?
Oppression & vigilantism is the result of hate in this case and many others.
They pursued justice through the legal channels and charged the paper with RACISM which is HATE. It is also a known fact that the muslims not terrorists living in France are being pushed out because the hate toward ANY muslim is France's theme.
My point in posting that is you say this lawsuit was not about HATE...
Posted by Montgomery
The last time they sued was almost a decade ago (2006, 2007)-- but it wasn't for
HATE, as you put it.
They sued because they thought no one should be able to draw the Prophet
because it was against their religion.
click to expand
When in fact it WAS. That was my point.
Posted by Damnata
Lib, Seraph..
In those cops topics you both stated plenty of times you will obey the reasoning of law, even if it conflicts with personal beliefs. I agree with that too. LIB, you went as far as saying that if someone doesn't respect a ruling of law, they can get the fuck out of the country. I agree with you completely. If you don't find yourself in a majority in a country where the majority passess laws, you are free to go elsewhere.
Those politicians that you said opposed the verdict...still are not above law. As an interesting idea, their own president defended the magazine and he was ridiculed in it plenty of times. Maybe, just maybe, the French people understand satire better than you? And it's within their right to judge it according to their laws. With or without snappy passive aggressive comments towards their nation and the things they stand for.
Do you think this is a game of dxp survivor here? Damnata, I'm not trying to strip your queen of dxp crown here, you are painting a picture of supporting hate and twisting what's going on in France..for you to compare the laws of America and the issues that have gone on here to France, you are so looking to survive this conversation...as you do in the dxp game. It's fucking ridiculous.
To attempt to spin that the magazine is not hate speech....do some research. I provided that here in that not only the courts but some non-racist politicians and lawyers filed charges and supported muslims against this newspaper on racism. Are they wrong too? Or are they following the LAWS OF FRANCE:
—Section 24 criminalizes incitement to racial discrimination, hatred, or violence on the basis of one's origin or membership (or non-membership) in an ethic, national, racial, or religious group. A criminal code provision likewise makes it an offense to engage in similar conduct via private communication.??
The racist president of France which is well known and setting a fine example for hate of course will side with a racist newspaper. But some politicians beside him do not. I refuse to read anything else you have to say because you are spinning as you always do to save face. I'm done with you and your horseshit too. If satire is about hate, it is no longer satire. I'll ask again ..when is "funny" hateful?
LIB, I never once brought American laws in discussion. Not once. Your system of law is yours to have and judge by it accordingly. If I wanted to, I would've drawn parallels with People vs Larry Flint. But we're discussing 2 different societies. So don't accuse me because I never talked about American laws in solving a matter in another country.
The only thing I said is if you respect laws in your country and will support them, then you have to respect those in other countries because they are judged by those laws and not yours.
Good, I'm done too. Just had to add that because that was a blatant lie. And what does the dxp queen title have to do with this? Are you running low on insults? I only wanted the most feral award but I didn't even get that. 😢
The only thing I said is if you respect laws in your country and will support them, then you have to respect those in other countries because they are judged by those laws and not yours.
Good, I'm done too. Just had to add that because that was a blatant lie. And what does the dxp queen title have to do with this? Are you running low on insults? I only wanted the most feral award but I didn't even get that. 😢
@ Seraph.
^Yes it is exactly my point. It happened in France, it's governed by French Law whether you disagree with it or not. Can you respect that?
I won't go around discussing common sense with you again.
I will let you with this.
1) Difference between responsabilities. Should one party have a higher responsability than other?
2) Common sense should apply to both parties right? Why do you only bring it up for one side exclusively?
3) Difference between language and action. I will sue you vs I actually sue you. I will kill you vs I am coming with a gun and kill you. I will mock you vs I want to erase you off the face of the ground.
4) Escalation of conflict between two parties. Action vs reaction when both are equal. Action vs reaction when one of these is language and the other is a violent action.
5) The way we relate to terms in different cultures. Freedom as absolute value but withing boundaries as an action of expressing of right. Who decides which culture's definition and law system is more just?
6) You keep describing these people as running law on brain cells and in general, pretty dumb and lacking in common sense. If a family member grieving would read this and then set out to kill, it's within his right yes? Because common sense would've allowed you to have mercy even at the height of your convictions. And you offended him so he's totally in the right to kill you. Maybe you didn't see that scenario coming.
7) Satire and what it stands for. Hate speech and what it stands for.
8) Intent as the basis of making a judgment for what was an intended action or not. Consequences over intended actions to do harm, consequences over no action to do harm. Do not backtrack to language again. It's the chief component of assigning guilt and without guilt, those people died as innocents.
Posted by seraph
2 of 3
And that French satire law extends only to the ability to prosecute someone under French law, in France, attempted in France or from another country.
^Yes it is exactly my point. It happened in France, it's governed by French Law whether you disagree with it or not. Can you respect that?
I won't go around discussing common sense with you again.
I will let you with this.
1) Difference between responsabilities. Should one party have a higher responsability than other?
2) Common sense should apply to both parties right? Why do you only bring it up for one side exclusively?
3) Difference between language and action. I will sue you vs I actually sue you. I will kill you vs I am coming with a gun and kill you. I will mock you vs I want to erase you off the face of the ground.
4) Escalation of conflict between two parties. Action vs reaction when both are equal. Action vs reaction when one of these is language and the other is a violent action.
5) The way we relate to terms in different cultures. Freedom as absolute value but withing boundaries as an action of expressing of right. Who decides which culture's definition and law system is more just?
6) You keep describing these people as running law on brain cells and in general, pretty dumb and lacking in common sense. If a family member grieving would read this and then set out to kill, it's within his right yes? Because common sense would've allowed you to have mercy even at the height of your convictions. And you offended him so he's totally in the right to kill you. Maybe you didn't see that scenario coming.
7) Satire and what it stands for. Hate speech and what it stands for.
8) Intent as the basis of making a judgment for what was an intended action or not. Consequences over intended actions to do harm, consequences over no action to do harm. Do not backtrack to language again. It's the chief component of assigning guilt and without guilt, those people died as innocents.
^I can only know the answers to those by my own judgment and sense of value. And it's shaky because I don't have the entirety of human knowledge at my disposal. Same as you. And because of that this isn't a right vs wrong debate for me, even though I am defending my views. But all those points I'll have to think over again when glancing over this topic. And it certainly made me more aware.
I want to add that the points I haven't debated in both your posts are the points where I agree with you. Goes without saying but maybe it's worth mentioning for consideration. I don't think either of you are 100% wrong and I just debated where I see room for different perspectives.
I want to add that the points I haven't debated in both your posts are the points where I agree with you. Goes without saying but maybe it's worth mentioning for consideration. I don't think either of you are 100% wrong and I just debated where I see room for different perspectives.
Somewhat off topic, but not really.. The hate against Jews is pretty obvious.
Anti-Semitism In France:
France has the largest Jewish and Muslim populations in Western Europe. It also has the most violent anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2013 worldwide, with 40 percent of all crimes in France directed toward the Jewish community. The Jewish Community Protection Service (SPCJ), which logs anti-Jewish acts of aggression in France, said there were 423 anti-Semitic acts: 318 "threats," 49 acts of violence, 52 acts of vandalism, three arson attacks and one attempted homicide in 2013.
2014
In July, a series of anti-Semitic attacks broke out.
On July 8, the day Israel began the military Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, a man pepper-sprayed a Jewish 17-year-old girl. She told police the man shouted, —Dirty Jewess, inshallah you will die.?? On July 14, a firebomb exploded in front of the entrance to a synagogue in Aulnay-sous-Bois, a northeastern suburb of Paris.
Six days later, violent anti-Semitic riots broke out in Sarcelles, a Paris suburb known as —Little Jerusalem.?? Cars were set on fire, stores were looted and two synagogues were attacked. Protesters reportedly chanted anti-Semitic slogans including —Death to Jews?? and —Slaughter the Jews.?? A week later, a man in Toulouse threw firebombs at a Jewish community center.
http://www.ibtimes.com/anti-semitism-france-country-has-history-hate-crimes-against-jews-1779328<BR>
Anti-Semitism In France:
France has the largest Jewish and Muslim populations in Western Europe. It also has the most violent anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2013 worldwide, with 40 percent of all crimes in France directed toward the Jewish community. The Jewish Community Protection Service (SPCJ), which logs anti-Jewish acts of aggression in France, said there were 423 anti-Semitic acts: 318 "threats," 49 acts of violence, 52 acts of vandalism, three arson attacks and one attempted homicide in 2013.
2014
In July, a series of anti-Semitic attacks broke out.
On July 8, the day Israel began the military Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, a man pepper-sprayed a Jewish 17-year-old girl. She told police the man shouted, —Dirty Jewess, inshallah you will die.?? On July 14, a firebomb exploded in front of the entrance to a synagogue in Aulnay-sous-Bois, a northeastern suburb of Paris.
Six days later, violent anti-Semitic riots broke out in Sarcelles, a Paris suburb known as —Little Jerusalem.?? Cars were set on fire, stores were looted and two synagogues were attacked. Protesters reportedly chanted anti-Semitic slogans including —Death to Jews?? and —Slaughter the Jews.?? A week later, a man in Toulouse threw firebombs at a Jewish community center.
http://www.ibtimes.com/anti-semitism-france-country-has-history-hate-crimes-against-jews-1779328<BR>
Posted by seraph
And there's no reason to constantly insult Damnata.
Pretty sure we can disagree with each other without losing our shit in the process.
Like I said...I'm not looking to strip her of her pride and joy crown...lol
I've been pretty damn reasonable calling her out, and will maintain that.
Posted by LetltB
Six days later, violent anti-Semitic riots broke out in Sarcelles, a Paris suburb known as —Little Jerusalem.?? Cars were set on fire, stores were looted and two synagogues were attacked. Protesters reportedly chanted anti-Semitic slogans including —Death to Jews?? and —Slaughter the Jews.?? A week later, a man in Toulouse threw firebombs at a Jewish community center.
http://www.ibtimes.com/anti-semitism-france-country-has-history-hate-crimes-against-jews-1779328<BR>
...so when a newspaper pats these very ^^^ violent french anti-Semitic violent rioters on the backs with humor sending the message it's ok, is that supporting hate or do they think this violence is funny?
How about this one? 2012-2013
Again is it responsible journalism to pat violence on the back and humorous? ...and this is just violence against muslim women. Is it good to poke fun of people who are being violently victimized?
Several violent attacks against Muslim women preceded the riots in France. One of the most severe incidents occurred on 13 June, when two men physically abused a 21 year-old pregnant woman.
Muslim women are increasingly the victims of violence.
In France in 2012, 85 percent of anti-Muslim reported incidents targeted women, and other countries demonstrate similar figures. The UK experienced a significant increase in anti-Muslim violence after the Woolwich killing, and the NGO Tell Mama recorded 12 incidents per week on average between March 2012 and March 2013. Most of these incidents concerned Muslim women.
The sharp rise in anti-Muslim attacks raises the question of responsibility. Who is to blame for the rise in anti-Muslim violence? Ultimately, individuals are to blame for their actions, but there is also a need to look critically at social and political influences.
Again is it responsible journalism to pat violence on the back and humorous? ...and this is just violence against muslim women. Is it good to poke fun of people who are being violently victimized?
Several violent attacks against Muslim women preceded the riots in France. One of the most severe incidents occurred on 13 June, when two men physically abused a 21 year-old pregnant woman.
Muslim women are increasingly the victims of violence.
In France in 2012, 85 percent of anti-Muslim reported incidents targeted women, and other countries demonstrate similar figures. The UK experienced a significant increase in anti-Muslim violence after the Woolwich killing, and the NGO Tell Mama recorded 12 incidents per week on average between March 2012 and March 2013. Most of these incidents concerned Muslim women.
The sharp rise in anti-Muslim attacks raises the question of responsibility. Who is to blame for the rise in anti-Muslim violence? Ultimately, individuals are to blame for their actions, but there is also a need to look critically at social and political influences.
Don't spin this is about right and wrong either...this about YOU maintaining & KNOWING this violence takes place yet it's ok to make fun of the victims who endure the physical violence.
Apparently those two terrorists are dead now. Good Riddance and Rot in pieces you terrorizing son of a 1000 whores. Though I feel they shoulda took em alive and not do what they said and make them martyrs.
I'm not really sure why they had to kill those people, couldn't they just use the legal system to shut them down if they were that offended? Collectively, they could make a difference, I would think. That's probably too civilized.
That's not news worthy though...
LOL
Some Islamic fellow on the news was trying to explain why it's offensive. He was equating it with insulting someone's mother. 😱
^^^^ LOL to hezbo condemning terr acts.
Posted by LetltB
Don't spin this is about right and wrong either...this about YOU maintaining & KNOWING this violence takes place yet it's ok to make fun of the victims who endure the physical violence.
No this is not about me maintaining any kind of violence. It is about you totally unwilling to see anything else beyond your definition of hate speech.
Violence happens everywhere, targeted violence as well. If I read news about gang shootings in the States, do I think you should be the one charged over it? Or the culprits?
Show me the link where the magazine made any kind of action of violence against anyone. Show me how they organized beatings in Paris or pushed for laws to ostracize and harm people they were mocking.
Can't do that, right? You know why? Because hate speech instigates, follows up with propaganda and direct action. There has to be a hatred backed by intent.
There's a huge difference between what this magazine was doing (satire, once again allowed by the law in their country) and say..antisemitic propaganda in Hitler's regime.
But even then, people in charge of law understood there is a difference.
Hans Georg Fritzsche vs Joseph Goebbels. Both were heavily involved in propaganda against jews. Goebbels killed himself alongside his wife and his children. However Frizsche was found not guilty by the Nuremberg military tribunal, one of the only 3 to be acquitted. Despite being vocally antisemitic in both press and radio.
"He was acquitted because it became evident to the tribunal that he had never pushed for the extermination of the Jews"
Unlike Goebbels who was instrumental in pushing propaganda into legislation.
This is the key difference.
did I miss the discussion on the book which was about to be published on that very day?
one night before this catastrophe I heard an interview on TV. The interviewee was a novelist who has written a fiction on how in future muslims win the selection.
I'm not focused on political subjects but I think the interviewer pointed at the similarity of that suggested scenario to the case of Hitler. H got the power through democratic selections what later lead to dictatorship.
Did the book get published on that day?
one night before this catastrophe I heard an interview on TV. The interviewee was a novelist who has written a fiction on how in future muslims win the selection.
I'm not focused on political subjects but I think the interviewer pointed at the similarity of that suggested scenario to the case of Hitler. H got the power through democratic selections what later lead to dictatorship.
Did the book get published on that day?
Posted by KVZZMIR11
Fact is, Charlie Hebdo would have mocked ALL OF YOU without mercy.
Absolutely. That's the intent of satire, it addresses all the ideas of society. It does not target one branch of people.
I'll post tomorrow an entire number of that magazine so you can all see from page to page they mocked everything. They even had different ideas between them about anything.
Posted by DwellingOnMove
did I miss the discussion on the book which was about to be published on that very day?
one night before this catastrophe I heard an interview on TV. The interviewee was a novelist who has written a fiction on how in future muslims win the selection.
I'm not focused on political subjects but I think the interviewer pointed at the similarity of that suggested scenario to the case of Hitler. H got the power through democratic selections what later lead to dictatorship.
Did the book get published on that day?
Yes, they even criticized that book in the 7th of January number. And that book hit the shelves the same day. The book isn't about how in future muslims win the selection but it speaks about the process of islamisation of Europe.
Now why would they have gone ahead and critisized that book and the author? After all it would've only helped to push their nefarious agenda further. I mean, wouldn't this book be godsend for them? No, because once again they had zero agenda in ostracizing muslims or christians or any other denomination.
Posted by KVZZMIR11Posted by DamnataPosted by KVZZMIR11
Fact is, Charlie Hebdo would have mocked ALL OF YOU without mercy.
Absolutely. That's the intent of satire, it addresses all the ideas of society. It does not target one branch of people.
I'll post tomorrow an entire number of that magazine so you can all see from page to page they mocked everything. They even had different ideas between them about anything.
It is part of French sharp fanged humour which goes back to 17th century...click to expand
That made me chuckle even if you intended it or not. You dissing Romanian vampires, man?
So were there several recent triggers? like the book this week, caricature the week before?
Or was it more like the book was published this week and the caricatures six months or two years ago?
I don't get how the synchronicity worked. Or did it at all?
Or was it more like the book was published this week and the caricatures six months or two years ago?
I don't get how the synchronicity worked. Or did it at all?
@KVZZMIR11
Sometimes they are downright evil man.
Check out this video with french mocking romanian/gypsies beggars in France and our reply for them.
We tried to be witty 😭. Typical European banter though
Sometimes they are downright evil man.
Check out this video with french mocking romanian/gypsies beggars in France and our reply for them.
We tried to be witty 😭. Typical European banter though
Posted by DwellingOnMove
So were there several recent triggers? like the book this week, caricature the week before?
Or was it more like the book was published this week and the caricatures six months or two years ago?
I don't get how the synchronicity worked. Or did it at all?
That book sure didn't help matters but they were enraged over a conflict that started years ago (if we believe they acted because of their religion and not because they were just 2 insane individuals)
The caricatures show up in every number, some numbers have 0 mocking of islam, others have more. In every number there is mocking of some type of religion though, be it catholicism, islamism and others. But then you have caricatures displaying animal rights, or mocking of their President. I think the politicians got the most mocking out of that magazine. There's also a collumn to mock fashion and hipster trends. Basically any idea will have been mocked at some point or another. No one escaped the satire.
But honestly, lunacy needs no trigger. It's also devoid of common sense. I see them as crazy individuals and I cannot blame their religion for this. Just who they were..obviously two derranged human beings, no matter what they believed in.
Posted by DamnataPosted by LetltB
Don't spin this is about right and wrong either...this about YOU maintaining & KNOWING this violence takes place yet it's ok to make fun of the victims who endure the physical violence.
No this is not about me maintaining any kind of violence. It is about you totally unwilling to see anything else beyond your definition of hate speech.
Violence happens everywhere, targeted violence as well. If I read news about gang shootings in the States, do I think you should be the one charged over it? Or the culprits?
Show me the link where the magazine made any kind of action of violence against anyone. Show me how they organized beatings in Paris or pushed for laws to ostracize and harm people they were mocking.
Can't do that, right? You know why? Because hate speech instigates, follows up with propaganda and direct action. There has to be a hatred backed by intent.
There's a huge difference between what this magazine was doing (satire, once again allowed by the law in their country) and say..antisemitic propaganda in Hitler's regime.
But even then, people in charge of law understood there is a difference.
Hans Georg Fritzsche vs Joseph Goebbels. Both were heavily involved in propaganda against jews. Goebbels killed himself alongside his wife and his children. However Frizsche was found not guilty by the Nuremberg military tribunal, one of the only 3 to be acquitted. Despite being vocally antisemitic in both press and radio.
"He was acquitted because it became evident to the tribunal that he had never pushed for the extermination of the Jews"
Unlike Goebbels who was instrumental in pushing propaganda into legislation.
This is the key difference.click to expand
Very poor response to the violence against muslims and jews over the years PRIOR to the recent shootings. In fact you didn't even respond to the violence that this newspaper perpetuates, instigates WITH HATE.
Posted by LetltB
Anti-Semitism In France:
France has the largest Jewish and Muslim populations in Western Europe. It also has the most violent anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2013 worldwide, with 40 percent of all crimes in France directed toward the Jewish community.
http://www.ibtimes.com/anti-semitism-france-country-has-history-hate-crimes-against-jews-1779328<BR>
THE MOST VIOLENT ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENTS REPORTED IN 2013 WORLDWIDE BY THE FRENCH.
The newspaper endorses this^^^^^^^^^^^^^HATE and you think it's funny. That's what I'm saying and you know it..why are you spinning it Damnata?
Posted by LetltB
How about this one? 2012-2013
Again is it responsible journalism to pat violence on the back and humorous? ...and this is just violence against muslim women. Is it good to poke fun of people who are being violently victimized?
Several violent attacks against Muslim women preceded the riots in France. One of the most severe incidents occurred on 13 June, when two men physically abused a 21 year-old pregnant woman.
Muslim women are increasingly the victims of violence.
In France in 2012, 85 percent of anti-Muslim reported incidents targeted women, and other countries demonstrate similar figures. The UK experienced a significant increase in anti-Muslim violence after the Woolwich killing, and the NGO Tell Mama recorded 12 incidents per week on average between March 2012 and March 2013. Most of these incidents concerned Muslim women.
The sharp rise in anti-Muslim attacks raises the question of responsibility. Who is to blame for the rise in anti-Muslim violence? Ultimately, individuals are to blame for their actions, but there is also a need to look critically at social and political influences.
...and the newspaper also endorses, antagonizes and instigates this violence and HATE... and YOU KNOW IT.
LIB..
Can you see the difference between mocking something and actively hating something?
Once again no matter how many times you capslock "HATE" unless you prove intent followed up by direct action and lobby for oppressive legislation..there is no intent therefore there is no guilt. The actions the magazine took to bring harm to the people they mocked? Direct action with real life consequences? Active steps from the magazine to showcase they actually hated the people they mocked and wanted to do them harm?
You mock FWB a lot and people who resort to it. Does that mean you actively hate them? No, it's just the idea never appeals to you and in your system of values you don't see these people in a good light. And it's ok to think that. But again you wouldn't set out to murder the people engaged in fwbs.
Can you see the difference between mocking something and actively hating something?
Once again no matter how many times you capslock "HATE" unless you prove intent followed up by direct action and lobby for oppressive legislation..there is no intent therefore there is no guilt. The actions the magazine took to bring harm to the people they mocked? Direct action with real life consequences? Active steps from the magazine to showcase they actually hated the people they mocked and wanted to do them harm?
You mock FWB a lot and people who resort to it. Does that mean you actively hate them? No, it's just the idea never appeals to you and in your system of values you don't see these people in a good light. And it's ok to think that. But again you wouldn't set out to murder the people engaged in fwbs.
What I know is that they do satire. That's also what the French law knows.
What you perceive is they instigate HATE.
Do you think you have a better grasp on satire than the people in their country and the laws the abide by?
What you perceive is they instigate HATE.
Do you think you have a better grasp on satire than the people in their country and the laws the abide by?
Can you prove the link between the articles you posted on violence and this magazine? Were the people oppressing those people found with this magazine in their pockets? Did they have the redaction on speed dial and the cartoonists were telling them the best ways to exercise violence? Was there a cell in the basement of the magazine where the cartoonists were thinking of strategies to do active harm to any kind of people?
What you're saying is..I go to a supermarket and on my way there I see a pamphlet where it says "SUPERMARKET CLERKS ARE BAD!". So I go in and kill the clerks.
Police shows up. "The magazine made me do it, man"
No, your madness made you do it.
What you're saying is..I go to a supermarket and on my way there I see a pamphlet where it says "SUPERMARKET CLERKS ARE BAD!". So I go in and kill the clerks.
Police shows up. "The magazine made me do it, man"
No, your madness made you do it.
Posted by Damnata
LIB..
Can you see the difference between mocking something and actively hating something?
Once again no matter how many times you capslock "HATE" unless you prove intent followed up by direct action and lobby for oppressive legislation..there is no intent therefore there is no guilt. The actions the magazine took to bring harm to the people they mocked? Direct action with real life consequences? Active steps from the magazine to showcase they actually hated the people they mocked and wanted to do them harm?
You mock FWB a lot and people who resort to it. Does that mean you actively hate them? No, it's just the idea never appeals to you and in your system of values you don't see these people in a good light. And it's ok to think that. But again you wouldn't set out to murder the people engaged in fwbs.
You are completely avoiding the facts I am providing here why is that?
Posted by LetltBPosted by LetltB
How about this one? 2012-2013
Again is it responsible journalism to pat violence on the back and humorous? ...and this is just violence against muslim women. Is it good to poke fun of people who are being violently victimized?
Several violent attacks against Muslim women preceded the riots in France. One of the most severe incidents occurred on 13 June, when two men physically abused a 21 year-old pregnant woman.
Muslim women are increasingly the victims of violence.
In France in 2012, 85 percent of anti-Muslim reported incidents targeted women, and other countries demonstrate similar figures. The UK experienced a significant increase in anti-Muslim violence after the Woolwich killing, and the NGO Tell Mama recorded 12 incidents per week on average between March 2012 and March 2013. Most of these incidents concerned Muslim women.
The sharp rise in anti-Muslim attacks raises the question of responsibility. Who is to blame for the rise in anti-Muslim violence? Ultimately, individuals are to blame for their actions, but there is also a need to look critically at social and political influences.
...and the newspaper also endorses, antagonizes and instigates this violence and HATE... and YOU KNOW IT.click to expand
You are avoiding this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ WHY?
^I am not avoiding anything.
The magazine is as responsible for acts of violence in France as much as you are responsible for gang shootings in the US.
Prove the connecting link between the magazine and some random person committing an act of violence. Prove to me the magazine had the INTENT to do harm, followed up with Legislation on it, organized any kind of meetings to do harm. Show me an article where they propose muslims should die, be banned etc. Show me how they urge the population to back them up in this crussade. Otherwise, there is no involvement on the part of the magazine. And also there is no hate.
I mean at this point you're showing me random acts of violence while assuming the magazine is behind the mindet of all the culprits. It cannot get more illogical.
How about "If you don't like the laws of this country, you're free to go elsewhere". You don't like the French law, you don't understand the way they do satire, why are you still posting in this topic?
The magazine is as responsible for acts of violence in France as much as you are responsible for gang shootings in the US.
Prove the connecting link between the magazine and some random person committing an act of violence. Prove to me the magazine had the INTENT to do harm, followed up with Legislation on it, organized any kind of meetings to do harm. Show me an article where they propose muslims should die, be banned etc. Show me how they urge the population to back them up in this crussade. Otherwise, there is no involvement on the part of the magazine. And also there is no hate.
I mean at this point you're showing me random acts of violence while assuming the magazine is behind the mindet of all the culprits. It cannot get more illogical.
How about "If you don't like the laws of this country, you're free to go elsewhere". You don't like the French law, you don't understand the way they do satire, why are you still posting in this topic?
Btw, LIB. There's many points I made, none of which you are addressing.
WHY LIB WHY?
Seriously, other than capslocking "HATE" and throwing random statistics at me..any new arguments?
It's like I am talking about this magazine and this attack and you bring up the price of chocolate in the UK.
WHY LIB WHY?
Seriously, other than capslocking "HATE" and throwing random statistics at me..any new arguments?
It's like I am talking about this magazine and this attack and you bring up the price of chocolate in the UK.
Posted by Damnata
^I am not avoiding anything.
The magazine is as responsible for acts of violence in France as much as you are responsible for gang shootings in the US.
Prove the connecting link between the magazine and some random person committing an act of violence. Prove to me the magazine had the INTENT to do harm, followed up with Legislation on it, organized any kind of meetings to do harm. Show me an article where they propose muslims should die, be banned etc. Show me how they urge the population to back them up in this crussade. Otherwise, there is no involvement on the part of the magazine. And also there is no hate.
I mean at this point you're showing me random acts of violence while assuming the magazine is behind the mindet of all the culprits. It cannot get more illogical.
How about "If you don't like the laws of this country, you're free to go elsewhere". You don't like the French law, you don't understand the way they do satire, why are you still posting in this topic?
Of course there isn't proof Damnata, they hide behind a fucking newspaper with some ink and perpetuate and instigate the violence. They also REWARD VIOLENCE TOWARD MUSLIMS AND JEWS by printing that shit for christ sakes. Why aren't you admitting to that??
Stop comparing my country to these HATEFUL fucks please.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
This article by another liberal of NY Times is very clear. Idiots can block bridges, tunnels, block traffic, assault po
Who do you think the most high maintenance person in astrology is? Which person is least high maintenance doesn't ca
The score after the first round: Aries-0 Taurus-10 Gemini-0 Cancer-0 Leo-0 Virgo-0 Libra- -2 Scorpio-4 Sagittar
I have and acquaintance who is really full on with political correctness she's a vegan and claims to be bisexual and is
And it's exactly how it looks.. first decan??in Taurus with my birthday, and the month... What does your create scree
OK I suppose this is a matter of opinion but it seems to me for sure that the world's #1 problem is actually OVERPOPULAT
What's the craziest or silliest thing you've seen or heard? Could be on here? Could be in Facebook? Could be on the s
what would you leave behind? - dudes asking girls for kik ? - SKINNY AND FAT SHAMING? - Relationship goals ga
Just popped my Jimmy John's cherry. For those of you who are unfamiliar, it's a gourmet sandwiches joint with fre
Ok so when dating should you ask that person if they have alot of female or male friends? How important is it to you th
What would you think of me based off of my chart Sun 26?_01' Cancer Moon 25?_33' Leo Mercury 4?_02' Leo Venus 16?_
http://www.people.com/article/2-year-old-accidentally-shoots-mother-walmart?xid=rss-topheadlines I don't have anythin
Lets try this again... As the year is coming to an end all I can think about is how all year I heard the signs just p
... from Christmas? :| The site is so SLOW. Anyone else having trouble?
I don't see why people are so afraid of them. They don't have slimy skin, their skin is actually pretty dry and soft to
Do you think the family should choose punishment for someone who committed murder? Yes or no? Or just let the judici
I need to vent because I bought my brother a necklace, sunnies, crystal deodorant and hair clippers and he bought me a f
Hm yes it does unfortunately still happen.. What are your opinions on cannibals in the three world countries..there is
Ok your in prison.. god I hope not but if you were.. What would be your last supper be like? What is your entree, sid
What would you do? Who would you want to be with you? What would your tombstone say?
The research I did earlier, regarding that ^^the Grand Mosque, the Muslim World League and the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF) sued the paper and it was based on racism...another form of "HATE". Not just about drawing the Prophet.
The paper was warned by politicians to stop as well. Charlie boy decided not to.
We now have 16 dead people, many of them innocent, because spreading HATE was above all a priority and profit. Speaks volumes.