Life of Brian is a brilliant movie. Should that be illegal 'cause Christians might be hurt? That's absurd.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Charlie Hebdo massacre - 2015-Jan-07 (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Maddy
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Actually they are. Every single person around the World can find something that offend them.
Media needs to be allowed to criticise any idea, any institution, any individual. As reader you are free to accept or refuse the criticism.
We must in a Democractic society be able to discuss everything openly.
The idea that people's feeling should prevent a criticism of in this case of a radical interpretation of Islam is absurd.
What is the same people get offended by an written article about how Muhammed married a 7-year old girl? hould that be banned as well?
Media needs to be allowed to criticise any idea, any institution, any individual. As reader you are free to accept or refuse the criticism.
We must in a Democractic society be able to discuss everything openly.
The idea that people's feeling should prevent a criticism of in this case of a radical interpretation of Islam is absurd.
What is the same people get offended by an written article about how Muhammed married a 7-year old girl? hould that be banned as well?
In Germany Satire is protected by the Constitution.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think you can protect a democratic society by limiting Freedom of Speech.
How people feel in Indonesia cannot have an effect on the Laws of my country. It's that simple.
Where is the respect for my values? My culture? My democracy?
- - - Updated - - -
The slippery slope of limiting freedom of speech based on whether or not people are offended is too steep. It's that simple.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think you can protect a democratic society by limiting Freedom of Speech.
How people feel in Indonesia cannot have an effect on the Laws of my country. It's that simple.
Where is the respect for my values? My culture? My democracy?
- - - Updated - - -
The slippery slope of limiting freedom of speech based on whether or not people are offended is too steep. It's that simple.
It's very valuable for me and humanity! The world should be saved from this poison called religion! That steals your money, takes your power and controls you! I support anything peaceful that fight religions. If there is god indeed, and he is perfect like they call, then don't you think it's pathetic to defend him? kill for him? arrest people for him? wouldn't he punishes us when we die? or we should punish each others for him, because he is pathetic?
There should not be any problem with any type of discussion, but these cartoons are not a discussion. They are just for provoking. just like somebody comes on official TV having a shit ALIVE. Is it his freedom to do so? Yes, but that will make many people all over the world feel disgusted when seeing that. He has no problem with his shit, but other people can not bear it unfortunately...
See that's the problem. Generalizing one case across all situations and then dropping the case because that generalization is essentially impossible. You can live in your ideal world but I prefer to stick to the reality which is a large number of people who have less tolerance of accepting differing beliefs (thus easier to manipulate and enrage), have mainly and mostly their religion as what they identify with, have been dealing with so many domestic problems (dictatorship, abuse of religion, foreign invasion, etc)/have fled to the west and not been accepted, been looked down on and ... and I can go forever mentioning the factors which explain the hows and whys of the nature of the current problem. More important and as I said before, Islam is susceptible to all wrong interpretations and has been abused from the very moment it came to existence. This is the reality and I prefer to face it instead of giving it the finger. Hopefully it's not gonna be like this forever, hopefully the day will come that Muslims will learn, through better education and a strong will for change, how to be more tolerant and less sensitive. Trivializing them, mocking them and their beliefs will only delay that day.
People should be provoked! You see what Iran is now and the past decades because of religion! Women are being told how to wear and behave! Middle east is much worse now.. Islam is growing and Europe's tolerance against them is decreasing, for that right wing and Nazism is rising again. Charlie Hebdo and the likes are showing the idiocy of both sides, they are doing great job! These jihadist fucks didn't become terrorist because of Charlie Hebdo, or Nazism didn't start because of the likes of Charlie Hebdo! If Charlie Hebdo was only attacking Islam, and Muslims, I would have agreed with you 100%
I would advice you to read up on Satire. You don't have the lightest clue of what it is.
But let me tell you in short: (this is an example) The Muhammed Cartoons from Jyllands-Posten was drawn to create a debate about whether or not we had started self-censorship in the fear of the consequences. A author to a (peaceful) book about Muhammed couldn't get anyone to illustrate it, due to the fear of the consequences of drawing Muhammed. The Newspaper Jyllands-Posten found that very problematic (obviously as free newspaper it must adress if we are limiting freedom of speech) and wanted to create some attention about the matter and begin a debate on whether or not, we had indeed started censoring in the fear of terror. They then had a different bunch of cartoonist draw a bunch of Muhammed-cartoons and that instantly created the desired and much needed debate about freedom of speech and self-censorship, and we are still having the discussions today.
Here a good quote on Satire.
But let me tell you in short: (this is an example) The Muhammed Cartoons from Jyllands-Posten was drawn to create a debate about whether or not we had started self-censorship in the fear of the consequences. A author to a (peaceful) book about Muhammed couldn't get anyone to illustrate it, due to the fear of the consequences of drawing Muhammed. The Newspaper Jyllands-Posten found that very problematic (obviously as free newspaper it must adress if we are limiting freedom of speech) and wanted to create some attention about the matter and begin a debate on whether or not, we had indeed started censoring in the fear of terror. They then had a different bunch of cartoonist draw a bunch of Muhammed-cartoons and that instantly created the desired and much needed debate about freedom of speech and self-censorship, and we are still having the discussions today.
Here a good quote on Satire.
It is a difference of cultures, Maddy.
The people in charge of the Danish newspaper were already knowing this is sensitive but they did not care. It is one of the most important things that we are raised on when we are young: "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
I don't justify killing anybody. I said that these cartoons were just to provoke people. You think provoking people should be encouraged. I don't. That is it.
The people in charge of the Danish newspaper were already knowing this is sensitive but they did not care. It is one of the most important things that we are raised on when we are young: "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."
I don't justify killing anybody. I said that these cartoons were just to provoke people. You think provoking people should be encouraged. I don't. That is it.
No. You can't ban these cartoons. The possibility to ridicule is the most fundamental, the most important aspect of freedom of speech. Political satire is one of the foundations of a decent political system. Without it you end up in communist China or Nazi Germany.
I'm going to quote Wikipedia: "The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem.".
About the Roman Catholic Church Wikipedia says: "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church.".
About Christianity Wikipedia says: ".Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning "the anointed one",[1] together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is an Abrahamic, monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.".
About the New Testament Wikipedia says: "The New Testament (Koine Greek: Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē
is the second major part of the Christian biblical canon, the first part being the Old Testament, based on the Hebrew Bible".
So are you still going to say that the Crusades had nothing to do with an interpretation of the Bible?
I'm going to quote Wikipedia: "The Crusades were military campaigns sanctioned by the Latin Roman Catholic Church during the High Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages. In 1095 Pope Urban II proclaimed the First Crusade with the stated goal of restoring Christian access to holy places in and near Jerusalem.".
About the Roman Catholic Church Wikipedia says: "The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian Church.".
About Christianity Wikipedia says: ".Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning "the anointed one",[1] together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is an Abrahamic, monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament.".
About the New Testament Wikipedia says: "The New Testament (Koine Greek: Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, Hē Kainḕ Diathḗkē
is the second major part of the Christian biblical canon, the first part being the Old Testament, based on the Hebrew Bible".So are you still going to say that the Crusades had nothing to do with an interpretation of the Bible?
It is. So please respect my culture in my land. I'm not saying you should publish the Muhammed-cartoons, but you need to respect my right to do so in my country. If people in my country wants to limit Freedom of Speech they are more than welcome to vote on Parties supporting that.
- - - Updated - - -
I've already clarified to you that these cartoons aren't only to provoke for the sake of provoking and hurting. It's to create a democratic debate in and about society.
- - - Updated - - -
Again read up on Satire and it's history. It goes back to ancient Greece.
- - - Updated - - -
I've already clarified to you that these cartoons aren't only to provoke for the sake of provoking and hurting. It's to create a democratic debate in and about society.
- - - Updated - - -
Again read up on Satire and it's history. It goes back to ancient Greece.
It can only come from a sadistic mind
Iran's problem is not a strictly religious one. Hijab is hardly even an Islamic thing. Far worse things go on in North Korea, where's religion in their equation? It's very simple-minded to attribute problems of a +70 million country to only one factor.
No because we already have enough of the damn things?
Iran's problem is not a strictly religious one. Hijab is hardly even an Islamic thing. Far worse things go on in North Korea, where's religion in their equation? It's very simple-minded to attribute problems of a +70 million country to only one factor.
No because we already have enough of the damn things?
Here's my ignorant question for today...
How can you even tell when a depiction is of Muhammad and not just some random Arab? That clearly seems subject to stated intent or fuzzy interpretation, because if no images of Muhammad are allowed ... how does anyone know what he's supposed to look like?
(Though I also know Islam also has a pietistic tradition of rendering images of Muhammad -- perhaps not unlike the Catholics who lie and tell you that priests have always been celibate throughout history.)
How can you even tell when a depiction is of Muhammad and not just some random Arab? That clearly seems subject to stated intent or fuzzy interpretation, because if no images of Muhammad are allowed ... how does anyone know what he's supposed to look like?
(Though I also know Islam also has a pietistic tradition of rendering images of Muhammad -- perhaps not unlike the Catholics who lie and tell you that priests have always been celibate throughout history.)