For cowards, this makes sense.
3 Likes
Did I somehow imply that they did? Their mistake is letting anyone and everyone into their country. See how there have been no terrorist attacks in Hungary and Poland and they donât accept any migrants or refugees?
So what is the solution? More cartoons?
OK, fair point. But how do you defend this tradition in the current era?
If thatâs what you think then answer this:
Are you actually willing to die just to make a point? And one that doesnât need to be made at that?
If you think itâs cowardly to avoid doing unnecessary things that will result in you being killed or injured then please, demonstrate your bravery for us. Maybe live stream it in case we donât get to hear back from you.
You need people who are willing to die just to make a point. Granted, it wonât be me and it wonât be you but if everybodyâs just going to look the other way⊠well, whatâs the point?
It is illegal and immoral to threaten anyone for no reason, law enforcement or not.
Initiating force is only moral if you are in imminent danger of death.
So while I donât agree with certain laws, none of them are threatening me imminently.
Youâve chosen a strange moral analogy. Insulting someone with a cartoon is tantamount to threatening to kill someone? Interesting.
1 Like
I get what you are saying, but when it comes to causes worth dying for you canât really put occupation by a foreign army on the same level as a tradition of obscene humor.
Also self immolation seems a bit crazy to me, attacking your enemies by whatever means appears to be a more logical approach. But I suppose it did have the desired effect.
Yes, but it is illegal and immoral under Sharia law to publish obscene cartoons of Muhammad. So while it might not offend me or you, it offends religious Muslims and some would advocate for the death of those responsible.
Again, depends on your morals. I donât disagree with you, but some people obviously do.
They are both examples of foolish behaviour that can get you killed if done in the wrong situation. Jamaican people have this saying, âwhat is joke to you is death to meâ, that pretty much sums this up.
Do your really think that the Hadiths or the Quran mention âcartoonsâ. Iâve read them multiple times and I can assure you that if one interprets them literally, as ISIS and Saudi Arabia do, they can find at least a dozen reasons every day to execute you. I mean you personally. The same goes for myself and everyone else here.
So no, thereâs no gradual outrage by radical islamists - just not the cartoons, everything else is ok. Everything you can think of is haram (forbidden) and an affront to God.
2 Likes
So what does that tell you?
I have read bits and pieces of the Quran, it say to beat the Christians and Jews into submission and make them pay a tax if they will not convert. âInfidelsâ refers to pagans and polytheists, maybe atheists as well, and of course they are to die. Some people believe every word. What are we to do?
Thatâs a bit of an exaggeration, but yes, many regular things in western society are forbidden in Islam. Just like some things that are normal under Sharia law (public beheadings for example) are illegal in the west. To some degree, it is a clash of civilisations. There are people on both sides who would like to see a big war, but that is the last thing I would want. Mistakes have been made which have led to the current situation but again, what can be done at this point?
On top of that, the west is morally corrupt in every way. Unless your morals are based on secular humanism and government laws.
They did not incite violence against themselves. That is not what the term legal phrase âinciting violenceâ refers to, as you damn well know. Or should know. The term incitement or âinciting violence/inciting imminent lawless actionâ is a term that describes the DIRECT encouragement to commit a crime.
It says nothing about being offensive or foolish. France has different laws but similar.
Go take a long walk off a short pier with this nonsense. While all governments/societies have flaws, the present day West is the best place to be born and live if you got to choose.
I was going to go on a whole rant. Just read some John Stewart Mill, John Locke and⊠Aristotle while youâre at it.
If youâd truly like to read the most well thought out arguments for freedom of speech, Millâs âOn Libertyâ is it. I wonât summarize his arguments. It answers everything youâve been asking.
2 Likes
Ironically, Muslims were translating Aristotle before Europeans.
1 Like
Charlie Hebdo was speaking out against fundamentalist violence and became the victims of it. Apparently thatâs asking for it. But what about all of those victims of that violence, not only in the West but around the world? What did they do to âinciteâ that violence? It truly is a sad thing when a Westerner blames the victims for exercising the freedoms that people have given their lives to protect.
1 Like
Yes, I am well aware that it does not meet the legal definition nor the intent of such laws. Thank you very much.
Yes, in terms of relative peacefulness and economic prosperity that is largely true. I donât really feel like getting into a whole new debate right now, all I can say is that the direction things are heading right now does not look good to me but at least we arenât living in the middle of war and we have food to eat.
Could it be that Sharia law is ahead of its time?
No, Iâm not serious.
They did nothing to incite violence against themselves and that is why it is a tragedy. You can say what you want about Charlie Hebdo, but all I can do is shake my head.
Maybe part of the reason for me seeing things different from you guys is that you are Americans and the values of free speech and other freedoms are instilled in you from a young age. I live in Canada, where we have free speech on paper but not in actual practice and there are all sorts of hate crime laws. You must know who Jordan Peterson is, he became well known for publicly taking a stand against laws proposed by our leftist regime that would make it an offence to not refer to someone by their âchosen pronounsâ.
So I can see why freedom of speech is important and I donât agree with most of the shit the government here has done in recent times, but I still think that getting yourself killed for nothing other than âbut I have the rightâ when there was no benefit to yourself from these actions is a very stupid thing to do.
Do you remember this incident here? If you are going to do something like this, this is the right way to do it. Whether or not you agree with it, you canât say they werenât prepared.
They were prepared for what did happen but they were not prepared for what could have happened.
Yes letâs not detract from the never ending string of Charlie Hebdo shouldnât of done that. Iâm sure that can go in all sorts of unexplored territory here.
So the West is morally corrupt but the best place for peace and prosperity? Maybe other places should step their corruption game up if so.
1 Like
True, but aside from the heavy police presence you can safely assume that many of the people attending this event were armed as well since this was in Texas. Nothing short of a massive bomb or a kamikaze attack with a plane could have stopped them, and the likelihood of either of those actually reaching their target is not very high.
I still look at this sort of thing as unnecessary, but if thatâs what you want to do this is how you do it.
You have a lot of worthless comments.
Would it be more worthwhile if I had about 100 posts saying they got what they deserved?
1 Like
His mocking of your disparate arguments laid bare that one of your arguments must be flawed⊠or you didnât think out your positions well because you canât hold those two positions at the same time.
@H_factor is using humor as an instructive tool for debate. I for one, see worth in challenging the arguments of someone youâre debating.
@chris_ottawa you seem frustrated.
1 Like