‘Charlie Hebdo’ Will Cease Publishing Cartoons of Prophet Muhammad

First topic message reminder :

http://www.newsweek.com/charlie-hebdo-will-cease-publishing-cartoons-prophet-muhammad-355272

Right move, or did the terrorists just win?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well being fair doesn't mean much if you're dead.

No it doesn't. Not fair is it?

Life frequently isn't fair eddie.

Anyway, you were talking about freedom of speech on here. Actually, people don't have complete freedom on here - there are rules against certain things, imposed either by Admin or by the forum host. The fact that the admin rarely enforce the rules isn't really relevant.

eddie wrote:I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people what to say.

And the day you allow someone to tell you, then you're no longer living in a free society.

Exactly!

We do have laws here which prevent people from saying exactly what they want though. People have been prosecuted for malicious tweets or things said on Facebook, and they've been prosecuted for mouthing off about racial things too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well being fair doesn't mean much if you're dead.

No it doesn't. Not fair is it?

Life frequently isn't fair eddie.

Anyway, you were talking about freedom of speech on here. Actually, people don't have complete freedom on here - there are rules against certain things, imposed either by Admin or by the forum host. The fact that the admin rarely enforce the rules isn't really relevant.

I abide by Ben's rules because it's his forum. I think people should be able to say what they like personally. Doesn't Mean I'll like it.

And just because "life" isn't fair, doesn't mean that people get what they deserve.
Those journalists didn't, they got killed and it wasn't fair.

Dunno about you, but I dint think it's fair to go around killing people becaeue they printed something a bunch of people didn't like.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Life frequently isn't fair eddie.

Anyway, you were talking about freedom of speech on here. Actually, people don't have complete freedom on here - there are rules against certain things, imposed either by Admin or by the forum host. The fact that the admin rarely enforce the rules isn't really relevant.

I abide by Ben's rules because it's his forum. I think people should be able to say what they like personally. Doesn't Mean I'll like it.

And just because "life" isn't fair, doesn't mean that people get what they deserve.
Those journalists didn't, they got killed and it wasn't fair.

Dunno about you, but I dint think it's fair to go around killing people becaeue they printed something a bunch of people didn't like.

The rules here are frequently broken actually, but they're not enforced.

People will insist on everything being "fair", but nobody has ever been able to achieve it really.

This has probably got nothing to do with the attacks. The people running it then had a policy of trying to be as offensive as possible. Different people run it now, perhaps they want a new direction

Deutsche Welle reported on Saturday that Sourisseau told the German magazine Stern that Charlie Hebdo had accomplished its mission: “We’ve done our job. We have defended the right to caricature.”

No of course it's hard to achieve "fair" rags. And that has been my whole point!
Who's to say what is "fair" to say when it comes to free speech?

You cannot censor some things and not others as one man's "fair" comment is another man's "poison word"

eddie wrote:No of course it's hard to achieve "fair" rags. And that has been my whole point!
Who's to say what is "fair" to say when it comes to free speech?

You cannot censor some things and not others as one man's "fair" comment is another man's "poison word"

Well the extremist Muslims clearly didn't think it was fair that a bunch of people could go on and on mocking them and their faith. As you say, who decides what is fair?

You'll find that some things are censored on here, but not everything - only the things which Ben considers to be offensive. The fact that he does not enforce the rules is neither here nor there. He might decide to do so tomorrow, and then would you complain about lack of free speech?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:No of course it's hard to achieve "fair" rags. And that has been my whole point!
Who's to say what is "fair" to say when it comes to free speech?

You cannot censor some things and not others as one man's "fair" comment is another man's "poison word"

Well the extremist Muslims clearly didn't think it was fair that a bunch of people could go on and on mocking them and their faith. As you say, who decides what is fair?

You'll find that some things are censored on here, but not everything - only the things which Ben considers to be offensive. The fact that he does not enforce the rules is neither here nor there. He might decide to do so tomorrow, and then would you complain about lack of free speech?

Why would I complain? I know the rules and I've decided to stay here and abide by them because I'm not in charge and don't care about the words that are banned. (yet).

The last I knew, It wasn't against the law to publish pictures of Mohammed and it wasn't against the rules for the people who worked there, to publish the pictures.
So again, the were killed unfairly, for breaking no rules, but simply because a small group of people didn't like what they published.

Is that fair?

And yet they were hypocritical enough to sack a cartoonist for anti semitism.

http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-fired-cartoonist-for-anti-semitism/

This is purely the caving in to the threat of violence from one particular group.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well the extremist Muslims clearly didn't think it was fair that a bunch of people could go on and on mocking them and their faith. As you say, who decides what is fair?

You'll find that some things are censored on here, but not everything - only the things which Ben considers to be offensive. The fact that he does not enforce the rules is neither here nor there. He might decide to do so tomorrow, and then would you complain about lack of free speech?

Why would I complain? I know the rules and I've decided to stay here and abide by them because I'm not in charge and don't care about the words that are banned. (yet).

The last I knew, It wasn't against the law to publish pictures of Mohammed and it wasn't against the rules for the people who worked there, to publish the pictures.
So again, the were killed unfairly, for breaking no rules, but simply because a small group of people didn't like what they published.

Is that fair?

I guess the killers thought it should have been against the law.

I think that several people here would complain if the rules were enforced. There would be posts being deleted all over the place, and people being banned.

Ok then. Well I guess if you think something should be against the law then it's okay to take the law into your own hands.

Can't wait to see how that one works out.

eddie wrote:Ok then. Well I guess if you think something should be against the law then it's okay to take the law into your own hands.

Can't wait to see how that one works out.

I didn't say that. The thing is that those cartoonists knew they were playing with fire, they knew that there are people out there who would kill in order to protect their Prophet and their faith. They knew there had been threats. You play with fire, you get your fingers burnt.

Yes they knew the risks but why would it mean they should stop?

eddie wrote:Yes they knew the risks but why would it mean they should stop?

Er ... so they don't get shot or blown up?

Do you think that the staff should continue to take risks on your behalf - to protect free speech?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes they knew the risks but why would it mean they should stop?

Er ... so they don't get shot or blown up?

Do you think that the staff should continue to take risks on your behalf - to protect free speech?

Why do you keep saying they're doing it for me? I'm not Lord Mayor of Free Speech.

Let me turn it around; do you think they should stop because you think it's wrong?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Er ... so they don't get shot or blown up?

Do you think that the staff should continue to take risks on your behalf - to protect free speech?

Why do you keep saying they're doing it for me? I'm not Lord Mayor of Free Speech.

Let me turn it around; do you think they should stop because you think it's wrong?

You think they should carry on doing it though, don't you?

Yes, I think they should stop because I think it's wrong - I already said that.

Okay I'm going now but my last point is this/

Should i kill you because I mightn't like what you say or print?

Night rags, been a pleasure debating with you tonight.
Catch you soon.

eddie wrote:Okay I'm going now but my last point is this/

Should i kill you because I mightn't like what you say or print?

Night rags, been a pleasure debating with you tonight.
Catch you soon.

No, but we all know that extremists don't care about what they "should" do, don't we? Those cartoonists knew that, but they carried on anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I'm going now but my last point is this/

Should i kill you because I mightn't like what you say or print?

Night rags, been a pleasure debating with you tonight.
Catch you soon.

No, but we all know that extremists don't care about what they "should" do, don't we? Those cartoonists knew that, but they carried on anyway.

That sounds disgustingly close to a "they were asking for it" argument, do you realize that?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, but we all know that extremists don't care about what they "should" do, don't we? Those cartoonists knew that, but they carried on anyway.

That sounds disgustingly close to a "they were asking for it" argument, do you realize that?

You mean like your lack of concern for the Wako bikers sounded disgustingly like a "they were asking for it" argument?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, but we all know that extremists don't care about what they "should" do, don't we? Those cartoonists knew that, but they carried on anyway.

That sounds disgustingly close to a "they were asking for it" argument, do you realize that?

You mean like your lack of concern for the Wako bikers sounded disgustingly like a "they were asking for it" argument?

I never said they were asking for what happened to them, but they were gang members who showed up to a remote meeting with weapons -- not cartoonists.

The primary biker gang at the Waco incident, the Bandidos, are considered a criminal organization roughly as dangerous as the Crips and Bloods gangs of California, or the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Hardly law-abiding citizens trying to publish a magazine.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay I'm going now but my last point is this/

Should i kill you because I mightn't like what you say or print?

Night rags, been a pleasure debating with you tonight.
Catch you soon.

No, but we all know that extremists don't care about what they "should" do, don't we? Those cartoonists knew that, but they carried on anyway.

That sounds disgustingly close to a "they were asking for it" argument, do you realize that?

Quite.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You mean like your lack of concern for the Wako bikers sounded disgustingly like a "they were asking for it" argument?

I never said they were asking for what happened to them, but they were gang members who showed up to a remote meeting with weapons -- not cartoonists.

The primary biker gang at the Waco incident, the Bandidos, are considered a criminal organization roughly as dangerous as the Crips and Bloods gangs of California, or the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang. Hardly law-abiding citizens trying to publish a magazine.

But you sympathised with the Baltimore rioters, who certainly did not have innocent intentions.

Also, what about the bikers who were not in the Bandidos? You have assumed that all the bikers were out for trouble.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

That sounds disgustingly close to a "they were asking for it" argument, do you realize that?

Quite.

Quite? You sound like Sassy.

Your argument sounds disgustingly like a "let them sacrifice themselves for my freedom of speech" one.

eddie wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Why should the employees of Charlie Hebdo (and their families) take the chance of being brutally murdered, just to appease those who think this is a win for terrorism and a loss for freedom of speech?

Evening Zack

Do you think that you should shut up because someone else tells you to?

If I choose to shut up, then I don't expect others to bully, coherse or encourage me to do so otherwise.

If you liked or agreed with what I said, you should have the courage to say it yourself when I stop saying it (for whatever reason).

My point is, don't be a coward by expecting me to be brave on your behalf.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Evening Zack

Do you think that you should shut up because someone else tells you to?

If I choose to shut up, then I don't expect others to bully, coherse or encourage me to do so otherwise.

If you liked or agreed with what I said, you should have the courage to say it yourself when I stop saying it (for whatever reason).

My point is, don't be a coward by expecting me to be brave on your behalf.

Well put Fuzzy. That's what I meant earlier, but you put it better than I did.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Why should 'more' employees risk their lives to please you?

Go publish your own cartoons. Let's see you take such risks.

Why should any religious person preach to others?
By doing so they are mocking the beliefs of those who do notbelieve in that belief system, but that is okay to religious people themselves. Except of course in countries like Saudi, where they take the view you cannot preach any other beliefs and face punishments and even death. People risk their lives to preach in some of these countries.The fact is, it is the most hypocritical argumentmade by religious people based on sensitivties of their faith, when by the very nature of their belief, they mock every other belief system as wrong.Again we all place our lives at risk and you do not bow down to terror by giving in, when you already face such threats daily. This was nothing short of a propaganda coup for extremism today, which now gives the geen light to more people thinking that terror can help them force their views onto people.

How's this answering my post? lol!

You clearly took exception when I questioned your courage.

Don't deflect by saying what you did during the IRA days (not that I believe that BS) - and stick to the cartoons.

You, Ed and Victor (so far) need to get together to publish your own cartoons and stop being a hypocrite.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

eddie wrote:

Evening Zack

Do you think that you should shut up because someone else tells you to?

If I choose to shut up, then I don't expect others to bully, coherse or encourage me to do so otherwise.

If you liked or agreed with what I said, you should have the courage to say it yourself when I stop saying it (for whatever reason).

My point is, don't be a coward by expecting me to be brave on your behalf.

Though you claim the intentions were done to protect those now working there.
I suspect this is more to do with trying to calm tensions, which has the opposite effect making other extremists be given a green light to still commit acts of terror on workers at the magazine. What you forget is that it does not matter that they have now stated they will not print anymore, they already have a history of doing so and will still be seen as a ligitimate target to attack because of priniting cartoons after the attack.
So the argument claiming this is done to proect life falls apart, because it expects that the extremists will now not target the employees or family of the magazine. Not only is that naive but fails to understand the resolve of these extremists.
Like I said we are all under threat and this is nothing short of bowing down to terror.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Why should any religious person preach to others?
By doing so they are mocking the beliefs of those who do not believe in that belief system, but that is okay to religious people themselves. Except of course in countries like Saudi, where they take the view you cannot preach any other beliefs and face punishments and even death. People risk their lives to preach in some of these countries.The fact is, it is the most hypocritical argumentmade by religious people based on sensitivties of their faith, when by the very nature of their belief, they mock every other belief system as wrong.Again we all place our lives at risk and you do not bow down to terror by giving in, when you already face such threats daily. This was nothing short of a propaganda coup for extremism today, which now gives the geen light to more people thinking that terror can help them force their views onto people.

How's this answering my post? lol!

You clearly took exception when I questioned your courage.

Don't deflect by saying what you did during the IRA days (not that I believe that BS) - and stick to the cartoons.

You, Ed and Victor (so far) need to get together to publish your own cartoons and stop being a hypocrite.

Frankly I could not give a rats arse whether you believe me mainly because you are an insensitive religious muppet .
What I do know is that you have not faced such a threat, where as I have.
Am happy to publish my own cartoons because a religion in itself insults every other belief by its own beliefs.
So lets stick to my last point that you weaseled out of replying to.
This is not about insulting people, this is about mocking a faith, where some of its followers are hypocritical idiots who get angered by their faith being shown up. Again they themselves by their belief mock anyone non-Muslim.
It shows how the problem is with such idiots who hold literal beliefs.
Again you mistakenly believe the people who work there are now safe by this declaration.
That is both naive and stupid failing to understand this in now way would stop a future attack there.
Hence why you do not bow down to terrorism and you stand defiant of such threats.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

How's this answering my post? lol!

You clearly took exception when I questioned your courage.

Don't deflect by saying what you did during the IRA days (not that I believe that BS) - and stick to the cartoons.

You, Ed and Victor (so far) need to get together to publish your own cartoons and stop being a hypocrite.

Frankly I could not give a rats arse whether you believe me mainly because you are an insensitive religious muppet .
What I do know is that you have not faced such a threat, where as I have.
Am happy to publish my own cartoons because a religion in itself insults every other belief by its own beliefs.
So lets stick to my last point that you weaseled out of replying to.
This is not about insulting people, this is about mocking a faith, where some of its followers are hypocritical idiots who get angered by their faith being shown up. Again they themselves by their belief mock anyone non-Muslim.
It shows how the problem is with such idiots who hold literal beliefs.
Again you mistakenly believe the people who work there are now safe by this declaration.
That is both naive and stupid failing to understand this in now way would stop a future attack there.
Hence why you do not bow down to terrorism and you stand defiant of such threats.

There's a difference between critiquing and mocking. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence can't tell the difference.

Just because I have a theological difference wit say a Christian, does not mean I mock that faith.

Besides as you know, Islam prohibits mocking others.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Frankly I could not give a rats arse whether you believe me mainly because you are an insensitive religious muppet .
What I do know is that you have not faced such a threat, where as I have.
Am happy to publish my own cartoons because a religion in itself insults every other belief by its own beliefs.
So lets stick to my last point that you weaseled out of replying to.
This is not about insulting people, this is about mocking a faith, where some of its followers are hypocritical idiots who get angered by their faith being shown up. Again they themselves by their belief mock anyone non-Muslim.
It shows how the problem is with such idiots who hold literal beliefs.
Again you mistakenly believe the people who work there are now safe by this declaration.
That is both naive and stupid failing to understand this in now way would stop a future attack there.
Hence why you do not bow down to terrorism and you stand defiant of such threats.

There's a difference between critiquing and mocking. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence can't tell the difference.

Just because I have a theological difference wit say a Christian, does not mean I mock that faith.

Besides as you know, Islam prohibits mocking others.

That was also my point Fuzzy. Mockery is designed to annoy people. Of course, it doesn't usually annoy them to the point that they shoot the people doing the mocking, but it must have been clearly understand that the intention of the cartoons was to annoy some Muslims rather than "educate" anyone.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Frankly I could not give a rats arse whether you believe me mainly because you are an insensitive religious muppet .
What I do know is that you have not faced such a threat, where as I have.
Am happy to publish my own cartoons because a religion in itself insults every other belief by its own beliefs.
So lets stick to my last point that you weaseled out of replying to.
This is not about insulting people, this is about mocking a faith, where some of its followers are hypocritical idiots who get angered by their faith being shown up. Again they themselves by their belief mock anyone non-Muslim.
It shows how the problem is with such idiots who hold literal beliefs.
Again you mistakenly believe the people who work there are now safe by this declaration.
That is both naive and stupid failing to understand this in now way would stop a future attack there.
Hence why you do not bow down to terrorism and you stand defiant of such threats.

There's a difference between critiquing and mocking. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence can't tell the difference.

Just because I have a theological difference wit say a Christian, does not mean I mock that faith.

Besides as you know, Islam prohibits mocking others.

How utterly daft.
Of course it is mocking the faith.
Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, which insults Christianity at its fundemental core.
So Islam does not prohibit mocking others as otherwise islam would never be able to preach to others.
If you preach Jesus is not the son of God to a Christian you would be insulting their belief when they believe he is the son of God.
Like I say a religious belief which bases the view there that all others are wrong fundementally insults all other faiths.
This is what makes me laugh about religious people how they cannot grasp something as simple as this.

So you claim that if a Christian says Muhammad was not a prophet and did not speak to God, he was an incarnation of the devil, they would not be insulting Islam then?
Hence why is it in certain Muslim countries other faiths cannot preach their faith, as it contradicts Islam.
Its not rocket science and hence why religious people are the most hypocritical going when they claim in regards to mocking.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

There's a difference between critiquing and mocking. I'm surprised someone of your intelligence can't tell the difference.

Just because I have a theological difference wit say a Christian, does not mean I mock that faith.

Besides as you know, Islam prohibits mocking others.

How utterly daft.
Of course it is mocking the faith.
Muslims do not believe Jesus is the son of God, which insults Christianity at its fundemental core.
So Islam does not prohibit mocking others as otherwise islam would never be able to preach to others.
If you preach Jesus is not the son of God to a Christian you would be insulting their belief when they believe he is the son of God.
Like I say a religious belief which bases the view there that all others are wrong fundementally insults all other faiths.
This is what makes me laugh about religious people how they cannot grasp something as simple as this.

So you claim that if a Christian says Muhammad was not a prophet and did not speak to God, he was an incarnation of the devil, they would not be insulting Islam then?
Hence why is it in certain Muslim countries other faiths cannot preach their faith, as it contradicts Islam.
Its not rocket science and hence why religious people are the most hypocritical going when they claim in regards to mocking.

It's not surprising you do not know the difference between mocking and critiquing. Your posts prove that on a daily basis. But I thought I'd give you a chance anyway.

And your examples above are not necessarily mocking. Again since you don't know the difference, I don't expect someone like you to understand.

Hilarious babble once again from a man who has no free will and fails to understand how religious belief itself mocks other faiths.
No surprise you cannot grasp this.
It matters not if you think its not mocking as again it is subjective to how religious a person is. So again what matters is the fact like other religious nutballs there is those in any faith who take the view it is mocking, hence why your view counts for naff all on the matter. As why do you think people fire bombed Parisian Saint Michel theater over a scene showing Jesus marrying Mary Magdaline.
I mean to me that is not an insult but to many Christians it was an insult.
Why do you think Christians also kicked off over Reza Aslan book Zealot?

You see religious people are so constrained by belief itself to grasp how others believe.

I think it's entirely up to religious people to decide if another faith mocks their own faith. I'm not offended by Muslims having a different belief re Jesus to me, I just don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me. That's entirely different to someone making cartoons to mock someone's religious beliefs.

Cuchulain wrote:Hilarious babble once again from a man who has no free will and fails to understand how religious belief itself mocks other faiths.
No surprise you cannot grasp this.
It matters not if you think its not mocking as again it is subjective to how religious a person is. So again what matters is the fact like other religious nutballs there is those in any faith who take the view it is mocking, hence why your view counts for naff all on the matter. As why do you think people fire bombed Parisian Saint Michel theater over a scene showing Jesus marrying Mary Magdaline.
I mean to me that is not an insult but to many Christians it was an insult.
Why do you think Christians also kicked off over Reza Aslan book Zealot?

You see religious people are so constrained by belief itself to grasp how others believe.

If my view doesn't matter, then stop asking me questions. Lol!

Raggamuffin wrote:I think it's entirely up to religious people to decide if another faith mocks their own faith. I'm not offended by Muslims having a different belief re Jesus to me, I just don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me. That's entirely different to someone making cartoons to mock someone's religious beliefs.

There if the problem though for centuries and still today found in some Muslim countries you are not allowed to disagree with that faith.
It is seen as an insult, which is criminalized. You have grown up in a society that has free speech, which allows people to have different views, but again there is those who will feel insulted by the very belief systems of another faith.
Take Dibs and her husband who think Islam is an insult to Christianity. You will find many literal evangical Christians viewing Islam the same way, just as you have some literal Muslims view Christianity as an insult to Islam, espcially if they follow the doctrine Wahhabism.
Hence why religious ideology in its literal sense is a very dangereous belief system and the last fewe thousand years is testimony of this fact, where people feel insulted by the beliefs of another faith.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:Hilarious babble once again from a man who has no free will and fails to understand how religious belief itself mocks other faiths.
No surprise you cannot grasp this.
It matters not if you think its not mocking as again it is subjective to how religious a person is. So again what matters is the fact like other religious nutballs there is those in any faith who take the view it is mocking, hence why your view counts for naff all on the matter. As why do you think people fire bombed Parisian Saint Michel theater over a scene showing Jesus marrying Mary Magdaline.
I mean to me that is not an insult but to many Christians it was an insult.
Why do you think Christians also kicked off over Reza Aslan book Zealot?

You see religious people are so constrained by belief itself to grasp how others believe.

If my view doesn't matter, then stop asking me questions. Lol!

What an immature reply again lol.
I ask questions because I know you cannot answer them, which as seen I easily just proved.

DOH

Raggamuffin wrote:I think it's entirely up to religious people to decide if another faith mocks their own faith. I'm not offended by Muslims having a different belief re Jesus to me, I just don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me. That's entirely different to someone making cartoons to mock someone's religious beliefs.

It seems some people need to looking up the dictionary definition of "mocking".

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think it's entirely up to religious people to decide if another faith mocks their own faith. I'm not offended by Muslims having a different belief re Jesus to me, I just don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me. That's entirely different to someone making cartoons to mock someone's religious beliefs.

It seems some people need to looking up the dictionary definition of "mocking".

It seems you need to just look at history to see and understand how subjective mocking is in regards to religion.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

If my view doesn't matter, then stop asking me questions. Lol!

What an immature reply again lol.
I ask questions because I know you cannot answer them, which as seen I easily just proved.

DOH

No, you said my view doesn't matter.

Your words, not mine.

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It seems some people need to looking up the dictionary definition of "mocking".

It seems you need to just look at history to see and understand how subjective mocking is in regards to religion.

Perhaps you do. But try a dictionary also.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


What an immature reply again lol.
I ask questions because I know you cannot answer them, which as seen I easily just proved.

DOH

No, you said my view doesn't matter.

Your words, not mine.

You view does not matter to me, what is fun though is to take the mick out of you, because you cannot move on.
At every turn you could not respond to points, so much so it is evident you took on my point that the actions to not draw anymore does not guarntee the saftey of the workers or the familes at the magazine.
I am just helping you better understand life which is not governed by your religion.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

It seems you need to just look at history to see and understand how subjective mocking is in regards to religion.

Perhaps you do. But try a dictionary also.

So your argument hinges on the meaning found in a dictionary and not how people themselves view something as mocking.

Sorry that really shows how badly you grasp something if you are using the definition as a base measure and not how people have acted for the last few thousand years.

DOH

Cuchulain wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

No, you said my view doesn't matter.

Your words, not mine.

You view does not matter to me, what is fun though is to take the mick out of you, because you cannot move on.
At every turn you could not respond to points, so much so it is evident you took on my point that the actions to not draw anymore does not guarntee the saftey of the workers or the familes at the magazine.
I am just helping you better understand life which is not governed by your religion.

If his view does not matter to you, you are simply mocking him for his belief and opinion.

This is what the cartoonists did - they mocked Muslims for fun, for profit as part of their job, and because they could.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think it's entirely up to religious people to decide if another faith mocks their own faith. I'm not offended by Muslims having a different belief re Jesus to me, I just don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me. That's entirely different to someone making cartoons to mock someone's religious beliefs.

It seems some people need to looking up the dictionary definition of "mocking".

Yes. Didge seems to take the view that simply having a different belief is mockery, and perhaps some people might take that view. However, the cartoonists were not killed for not believing in Islam or for having a different faith, they were killed for directly mocking it, and for mocking the Islamic Prophet.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

You view does not matter to me, what is fun though is to take the mick out of you, because you cannot move on.
At every turn you could not respond to points, so much so it is evident you took on my point that the actions to not draw anymore does not guarntee the saftey of the workers or the familes at the magazine.
I am just helping you better understand life which is not governed by your religion.

If his view does not matter to you, you are simply mocking him for his belief and opinion.

This is what the cartoonists did - they mocked Muslims for fun, for profit as part of their job, and because they could.

Wrong.
I am mocking him because we used to get on and after a bust up how he cannot move on, where I have attempted to do so.
I am happy to move on now, but he seems to have no wish to do so.
See you just proved how you are insensitive to religion.
Which shows how it is religious people who are the problem.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

It seems some people need to looking up the dictionary definition of "mocking".

Yes. Didge seems to take the view that simply having a different belief is mockery, and perhaps some people might take that view. However, the cartoonists were not killed for not believing in Islam or for having a different faith, they were killed for directly mocking it, and for mocking the Islamic Prophet.

You miss the point, as why is it for the last few thousand years people have been killed for just having a different faith.
For example, explain to me why there is no more followers of Catharism or Arianism?