Pope Francis says do not insult other faiths in response to Charlie Hebdo attack
70 replies, posted
[QUOTE=OutspokenGolf;46950653]no, you guys don't understand
charlie hebdo's thing was to be politically and socially defiant and it works great, they sold a lot of copies as a result of this whole affair
but there are entire countries of people that are white knuckle pissed right now because of the way that they just blatantly disrespect their way of life and their religious ideals. it's different to how you or I may see it, if i was to get called a prick or that something i did was stupid, hey, shit, maybe you're right. they honestly believe that this is a direct attack on their way of life. they're nuts, maybe. The attack on the paper's headquarters is an overreaction, sure, but you can say this shit about so many other things, the troubles, self immolating monks, it goes on.
When you are making fun of people who can't or won't laugh along with you, why the fuck are you making fun of them in the first place? it's only funny for you and your dumb buddies and then they get mad enough to do something really stupid that only gives you more material so the cycle can continue.[/QUOTE]
I'd say they were making fun of them because they were explicitly told they can't by those people.
Or rather an extremist minority of those people.
[QUOTE=gk99;46950100]
Then you're just an asshole and being one completely on purpose knowing that you're upsetting people?
[/QUOTE]
You seem to have missed the news about some atheist getting jailed for three years just because he is an atheist, insulting a religion is pretty tame to that. As long as stuff like that happen, why should such a religion be respected?
Religion is simply holding us back
If you feel your religion is threatened by a little mocking, then maybe your religion isnt worthy being in our postmodern times
Still the coolest pope.
But I disagree on this one, Franky.
[QUOTE=OutspokenGolf;46950653]no, you guys don't understand
charlie hebdo's thing was to be politically and socially defiant and it works great, they sold a lot of copies as a result of this whole affair
but there are entire countries of people that are white knuckle pissed right now because of the way that they just blatantly disrespect their way of life and their religious ideals. it's different to how you or I may see it, if i was to get called a prick or that something i did was stupid, hey, shit, maybe you're right. they honestly believe that this is a direct attack on their way of life. they're nuts, maybe. The attack on the paper's headquarters is an overreaction, sure, but you can say this shit about so many other things, the troubles, self immolating monks, it goes on.
When you are making fun of people who can't or won't laugh along with you, why the fuck are you making fun of them in the first place? it's only funny for you and your dumb buddies and then they get mad enough to do something really stupid that only gives you more material so the cycle can continue.[/QUOTE]
Why would a woman tempt a man by dressing seductively and then complain when she gets raped?
Because being aroused by someone does not grant you the right to violate them regardless of whether they did something which "provoked" you.
We shouldn't say to the woman, why would you dress the way you did when you know it provokes men, the man may be to blame but you are also at fault.
Likewise, being offended by something does not grant you the right to silence the people who said the things that offended you by killing them. We shouldn't say, those terrorists were wrong for killing you but you were also wrong because if only you'd just not provoked them with your words.
That's victim blaming.
When you criticise someone for doing something, and in response they go and do the things you criticised them for doing, it only proves that your criticisms were valid and should be repeated regardless of the offence it causes to those people.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46950557]It's all well and good to say it was avoidable, just like getting raped cause you're too drunk to say no, right?
Wait no both of those things are terrible and the onus of those actions is on the perpetrators not the fucking victims.
Both are true or neither is true. I'm pretty sure both are true[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Riutet;46954648]Why would a woman tempt a man by dressing seductively and then complain when she gets raped?
Because being aroused by someone does not grant you the right to violate them regardless of whether they did something which "provoked" you.
We shouldn't say to the woman, why would you dress the way you did when you know it provokes men, the man may be to blame but you are also at fault.
Likewise, being offended by something does not grant you the right to silence the people who said the things that offended you by killing them. We shouldn't say, those terrorists were wrong for killing you but you were also wrong because if only you'd just not provoked them with your words.
That's victim blaming.
When you criticise someone for doing something, and in response they go and do the things you criticised them for doing, it only proves that your criticisms were valid and should be repeated regardless of the offence it causes to those people.[/QUOTE]
except that those examples are completely incongruous to what happened to charlie hebdo.
the editors of the magazine weren't intoxicated and easily taken advantage of, they published the material with full knowledge of the threats they received before.
the magazine wasn't randomly attacked out of the blue either, the magazine had received threats in the past and chose to ignore them.
if you go out alone at night and are attacked by a random assailant, that is entirely beyond your fault and ability to effectively prepare.
if you go out alone at night after being threatened with attack by someone that's threatened you before, someone whom you know could very well attack you, and someone whom you know is watching and following you, then you're being careless and stupid.
did you deserve what you got? no. do the people who did it need to be caught and brought to justice? yes. but that's not the point.
[editline]17th January 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;46950466]12 people's children would be alive today if it weren't for fundamentalists with assault rifles. Fuck off with this victim blaming bullshit. People shouldn't expect to be gunned down because they made fun of someones shitty god.[/QUOTE]
hey look it's all fine and good to say that islamist terrorists shouldn't exist and shouldn't kill people
but guess what
they do
they are
and you're only digging yourself a grave if you decide to ignore that danger because you think it's unfair.
[QUOTE=joes33431;46954820]except that those examples are completely incongruous to what happened to charlie hebdo.
the editors of the magazine weren't intoxicated and easily taken advantage of, they published the material with full knowledge of the threats they received before.
the magazine wasn't randomly attacked out of the blue either, the magazine had received threats in the past and chose to ignore them.
if you go out alone at night and are attacked by a random assailant, that is entirely beyond your fault and ability to effectively prepare.
if you go out alone at night after being threatened with attack by someone that's threatened you before, someone whom you know could very well attack you, and someone whom you know is watching and following you, then you're being careless and stupid.
did you deserve what you got? no. do the people who did it need to be caught and brought to justice? yes. but that's not the point.
[editline]17th January 2015[/editline]
hey look it's all fine and good to say that islamist terrorists shouldn't exist and shouldn't kill people
but guess what
they do
they are
and you're only digging yourself a grave if you decide to ignore that danger because you think it's unfair.[/QUOTE]
by your logic, if I was so offended by what you just said, that I had to kill you, that is ENTIRELY on you now. I mean, you had it coming right?
That's what you're saying.
That's how dumb this argument has gotten.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46954863]by your logic, if I was so offended by what you just said, that I had to kill you, that is ENTIRELY on you now. I mean, you had it coming right?
That's what you're saying.
That's how dumb this argument has gotten.[/QUOTE]
are you reading the same posts that i'm making, because i'm pretty sure i said this:
[quote=me]did you deserve what you got? no. do the people who did it need to be caught and brought to justice? yes. but that's not the point.[/quote]
and this
[quote=me]if you go out alone at night and are attacked by a random assailant, that is entirely beyond your fault and ability to effectively prepare.
if you go out alone at night after being threatened with attack by someone that's threatened you before, someone whom you know could very well attack you, and someone whom you know is watching and following you, then you're being careless and stupid.[/quote]
step back for a moment and digest what i've said, rather than what you [I]think[/I] i've been saying.
if you decided to find where i lived and murder me, right now, because of the post i just made, without forewarning, that wouldn't be my fault.
but if you decided to threaten to kill me should i continue to post a specific thing, and you made clear that you know where i live, then maybe it would be a smart move of me to not continue to post said specific thing. maybe it would be a smart move to alert the authorities, report you on the forum, and take extra precautions until i knew it was safe.
charlie hebdo decided not to do these things.
[QUOTE=joes33431;46954903]are you reading the same posts that i'm making, because i'm pretty sure i said this:[/QUOTE]
Yes I am. I didn't say you "deserved" it. I said it was entirely on you. Isn't it? That's what you just said, that the onus of responsibility for those actions is effectively transferred to the victim party in this situation.
[QUOTE]and this[/QUOTE]
Which is mildly correct in the idea that someone can put themselves in harms danger, that then it's their fault. Now, this comes back to the comment I made earlier that you dismissed with a handwave and nothing more.
If you are too drunk to say no, you're effectively putting yourself in harms danger, you were once sober and cautious and you decided to throw that away, you're effectively putting yourself in harms way, like you said. Now, the curious thing is, for me at least, that these scenarios are very different but get to the heart of the same matter. Are you responsible for being in a bad place at the moment a psycho tries to kill you? Well, half, right?
But it doesn't matter because in the end, the actions of the extremist are what matter.
[QUOTE]step back for a moment and digest what i've said, rather than what you [I]think[/I] i've been saying based around other people's comments on the issue.
if you decided to find where i lived and murder me, right now, because of the post i just made, without forewarning, that wouldn't be my fault.
but if you decided to threaten to kill me should i continue to post a specific thing, and you made clear that you know where i live, then maybe it would be a smart move of me to not continue to post said specific thing. maybe it would be a smart move to alert the authorities, report you on the forum, and take extra precautions until i knew it was safe.
[/QUOTE]
See, you said all the right things here except you said "Not to continue to post said thing" which is a smart step but has basically resulted in exactly what I want, no? You can't talk anymore, you're done with your message, i've censored and silenced you through violence, I win.
[QUOTE]charlie hebdo decided not to do these things.[/QUOTE]
Which is their fault. Getting murdered, not their fault. They didn't "Have it coming".
Unless you agree that silencing and censoring through violence is right, I don't see why you're unable to properly place the blame here.
[QUOTE=joes33431;46954820]they published the material with full knowledge of the threats they received before.[/quote]
People receive threats all the time, rarely are they ever made good on. Being threatened over things you have wrote is not a valid reason to stop writing. If it were, pretty much anyone with a name would go silent overnight, as most of them have likely received threats for what they have wrote.
[quote]if you go out alone at night and are attacked by a random assailant, that is entirely beyond your fault and ability to effectively prepare.[/quote]
Buy a gun, learn a martial art, travel fast and avoid shady areas, avoid anyone you can see in advance. All reasonable steps that can be taken, when we speak of ideals we say you shouldn't have to, when we speak of reality we say you ought to do at least one of these things.
[quote]if you go out alone at night after being threatened with attack by someone that's threatened you before, someone whom you know could very well attack you, and someone whom you know is watching and following you, then you're being careless and stupid.[/quote]
You tell me my statements are not analogous yet present your own with the same flaw. When someone threatens you seriously, you call the police and change places and eventually the problem is probably going to go away, so you simply lay low for a while and wait for the police to do their job or for the person making the threat to lose interest. When you're dealing with radical Islamist extremists, these people are not going away, the only solution in your analogy would be to simply never step outside again, or only step outside to move to your next safehouse, which is not acceptable, nor should it ever be acceptable in a first world country.
[quote]hey look it's all fine and good to say that islamist terrorists shouldn't exist and shouldn't kill people
but guess what
they do
they are
and you're only digging yourself a grave if you decide to ignore that danger because you think it's unfair.[/QUOTE]
I agree with you that they're a threat that needs to be taken into account, I simply don't think you should compromise your free speech because they might kill you for it, nor do I think "just don't say things if you don't want to die" is a reasonable argument in a first world country. I'm not saying they shouldn't kill people for their writing and therefore it's not a problem, I'm saying they shouldn't and we shouldn't cave in to them and we should also prepare for them. Though I can see why you might have gotten that idea as I wasn't talking broadly, just in response to that one particular idea of curtailing your speech in response to murderous nutjobs who are going to be around for a long, long time.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46954929]Yes I am. I didn't say you "deserved" it. I said it was entirely on you. Isn't it? That's what you just said, that the onus of responsibility for those actions is effectively transferred to the victim party in this situation.[/quote]
i never meant to imply that it was entirely their fault, but to suggest that they were entirely correct and morally upright in what they did is just as disingenuous. it doesn't make it right to attack them, but it does make them partially responsible for what happens to them.
[quote]Which is mildly correct in the idea that someone can put themselves in harms danger, that then it's their fault. Now, this comes back to the comment I made earlier that you dismissed with a handwave and nothing more.
If you are too drunk to say no, you're effectively putting yourself in harms danger, you were once sober and cautious and you decided to throw that away, you're effectively putting yourself in harms way, like you said. Now, the curious thing is, for me at least, that these scenarios are very different but get to the heart of the same matter. Are you responsible for being in a bad place at the moment a psycho tries to kill you? Well, half, right?[/quote]
again the example doesn't hold up, because there isn't only knowledge of a [I]risk[/I] of an attack happening by [I]chance[/I]. again, they [I]knew[/I] that people were watching what they did and they [I]knew[/I] that specific people were out to get them if they did a specific thing.
if you [I]really[/I] wanted to stretch the example, then the only way you could do so thoroughly is to say that someone went out and publicly announced that they were going to go to a bar to get drunk, providing the time and place of said event, knowing full and well beforehand that their unnamed stalker was watching.
[QUOTE]But it doesn't matter because in the end, the actions of the extremist are what matter. [/QUOTE]
is it really an unreasonable proposition to suggest that you should make an effort to protect yourself from people that want to kill you
[QUOTE]See, you said all the right things here except you said "Not to continue to post said thing" which is a smart step but has basically resulted in exactly what I want, no? You can't talk anymore, you're done with your message, i've censored and silenced you through violence, I win. [/QUOTE]
you might "win", but i'm not dead, and more importantly the people around me aren't dead.
if i want to do something reckless that hurts me and me alone, that's my right, but when my actions put my family, friends, and neighbors at risk as well, and none of those people had a hand in the decision i made, then i'm being recklessly negligent with other people's lives, and that is still inexcusable regardless of how inexcusable the actions of the assailants [I]also[/I] were.
[quote]Which is their fault. Getting murdered, not their fault. They didn't "Have it coming".
Unless you agree that silencing and censoring through violence is right, I don't see why you're unable to properly place the blame here.[/QUOTE]
it isn't about what's right, it's about what the company's leaders could have properly done to protect themselves and their employees.
if a single editor decided to go rogue and do something and put themselves alone in harm's way, then by all means. but the victims of this tragedy weren't just the editor or the artist, they also were employees that were only related to the magazine's content by association.
remember, charlie hebdo is a company. it has an obligation to protect the people that works for it, and it made a reckless decision that put people unrelated to said decision in harm's way.
if a parent decides to not wear a seatbelt and not make their child do the same, doesn't some of the blame rest on the parent for the child's death in the event that someone crashes into them?
and i need to put a caveat on all of this: i am not suggesting that any of the things i've said be the basis for legislation. i am not advocating to remove rights, i am advocating that people make smart personal decisions when using those rights, and it's anyone's choice to make those decisions for themselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.