Terrorist Attack on Paris Satirical Magazine

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



You are indeed because you just showed you do not understand equality and well being



You do understand equality do you not? And think about what you said about the Prime Minister, as how do you not have the same equal rights?
Seriously that was a real no egg on face tie on your part.
If your equal rights are being denied what does that tell you?
Equality is having the same rights, not because somebody has been elected Prime Minister through democracy you could also do yourself.
Seriously you really show up not being smart on that
So if your rights have been denied and your well being affected,for example you are discriminated, your well being affected and not treated with equality is then being offended.
Very simple and again you can apply to everything as this for a standard.

well Im not going to argue YOUR agenda driven misuse of words
nor am I going to sit here arguing semantics with some one who considers his own redefinition  of a word as the corerect one and gets all shirty when corrected.....

offend .....

Definition of offend in English:
verb
1 [with object] Cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful: e.g. 17 per cent of viewers said they had been offended by bad language

from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/offend



and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???

darknessss wrote:
I suppose we will now see the obligatory half dozen "tame" Muslims hauled out to show "solidarity with the people of paris, and tell us how "not real Muslim" these animals are.

darknessss wrote:

Cass wrote:
so wouldn't that be counter-productive and actually would be used as a recruiting tool by AQ IS and any affiliates?

and as sadly shown by today, the wests' intelligence services are not infalliable so how could you prove someone went on jihadi and not end up shooting an innocent person?

Ok I get it ...better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent die....

so ...just permanently exile them  its then up to them to prove otherwise.

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:


well Im not going to argue YOUR agenda driven misuse of words
nor am I going to sit here arguing semantics with some one who considers his own redefinition  of a word as the corerect one and gets all shirty when corrected.....

offend .....

Definition of offend in English:
verb
1 [with object] Cause to feel upset, annoyed, or resentful: e.g. 17 per cent of viewers said they had been offended by bad language

from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/offend



and moreover ...can you please explain to me why and how lampooning a religious figure can possibly in any way, even in the slightest, affect someones well being and equality??
do you really think they are such "sensitive" creatures???

So you are upset you looked silly about what is equality?
Grow some backbone mate.
The fact is your well being and equality is the bases here around how you could be offended, as that is the simple matter of the facts, if for example someone has intended to cause you offense. You do understand the difference where to intentionally defend someone, with the intent to cause they distress is?

sorry but that is a load of rubbish, or do you know better than the academics who define the use of language?
Oh I get it...you are the supreme know it all......

my well being and equality are not the defining factors of offense, though as vaya correctly says if they were of sufficiently poor quality that may give rise to offense.
further having a good level of well being and equality does not prevent me from being offended

for example....I may be generally speaking well off and, being western have a decent level of equality.

that does NOT mean that for instance unjustified foul language in front of my kids is not offensive....does it?




Remember as long as your well being and equality does not affect the well being and equality of another. Religious insults are directed at something which cannot be proved,, which then is the person being over sensitive as many religious people are espcially if they hold literally beliefs, no matter the faith. So I never claimed it was.
Though some people are intending to attempt to incite trouble by insulting a faith. We have seen this before. 1988 the last temptation of Christ you had the attack on the Saint Michel theater, Paris, injuring 13 people, where people wrongly believed this was an insult. This is literal belief for you and why some are religiously insane.
The point is and I keep telling you why would you want to intend to offend.??

this is why i wanted a definition.....
because you see, if we stick to the correct definition...then many other things come into view

for instance THIS time it was a satirical magazine which made fun of islam (it should also be noted that it has made fun of other religions as well...but they didnt kill people over it)
but i will conceed that indeed it was, knowing the idiocy of these people, unwise to continue (not wrong note, but unwise)

however as you are perfectly aware there are many other things that "offend" these delicate souls...
so who is next.....

a gaggle of pretty young girls dressed for a night out?

and would you then say the same.....they should not have done it because they know it offends a certain "group" within society?

or perhaps the local pork butcher......

or what?

thats the problem with a "pat it on the head" solution....

further more you talk about you "taking a stand" against intolerance (i suppose it gives you something to do)

but I note you dont, with any enthusiasm and only under duress take a stand against "their " intolerance

how about I am offended by their actions??
how about I am offended by THEM being offended about things that are perfectly acceptable within MY culture??

or am I not allowed to be and only "they" can be offended in your strange and faustian like world?

Ast to why I would want to offend...i cant say personally that I do, but that POV of course is only valid from here....YOU may find my opinions "offensive"
well boo hoo sucks to you ....

see theres the point.....You CANNOT possibly, in any way, hope to accomodate or legislate for "offense" since what one finds acceptable others may not

some folks laugh their socks off at "chubby" brown, Me i find him a nasty offensive little worm
some folks think that fatuous twat off top gear funny, me i find him an insensitive ignorant and offensive boor...
etc etc etc

so you cannot say "why would you want to offend" or you should not offend, because then you silence everything and cover the world in a dead grey blanket lest "someone" be offended.

further freedom of expression and freedom of opinion MUST allow for the right to be "offensive" (because what is offensive is entirely subjective as shown above)
moreover a freedom restricted is NOT a freedom, it is mere concession

freedom of expression and freedom of speech (i.e the right to communicate those opinions) must not be restricted otherwise they are no longer free, the fact that some may abuse it is irelevant and laws which restrict such are merely a sop for lazy government and poor education...(not to mention that "policing" such laws via white elephants like the ehrc are dispropotionately expensive)

Lone Wolf wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Ok I get it ...better 1000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent die....

so ...just permanently exile them  its then up to them to prove otherwise.

YOU are truly demented, "darkness"...

NO DOUBT you consider yourself yourself to have some degree of "freedom", and a very narrow concept of righteousness on your side ~ but to me, the 'fact' that you would evidently be quite prepared to allow a thousand innocent people die, just so you can take your own 'vengeance' on the one guilty individual, shows that you're no different to those terrorists..    

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

sorry but that is a load of rubbish, or do you know better than the academics who define the use of language?
Oh I get it...you are the supreme know it all......
my well being and equality are not the defining factors of offense, though as vaya correctly says if they were of sufficiently poor quality that may give rise to offense.
further having a good level of well being and equality does not prevent me from being offended
for example....I may be generally speaking well off and, being western have a decent level of equality.
that does NOT mean that for instance unjustified foul language in front of my kids is not offensive....does it?
this is why i wanted a definition.....
because you see, if we stick to the correct definition...then many other things come into view
for instance THIS time it was a satirical magazine which made fun of islam (it should also be noted that it has made fun of other religions as well...but they didnt kill people over it)
but i will conceed that indeed it was, knowing the idiocy of these people, unwise to continue (not wrong note, but unwise)

however as you are perfectly aware there are many other things that "offend" these delicate souls...
so who is next.....
a gaggle of pretty young girls dressed for a night out?
and would you then say the same.....they should not have done it because they know it offends a certain "group" within society?
or perhaps the local pork butcher......
or what?

thats the problem with a "pat it on the head" solution....

further more you talk about you "taking a stand" against intolerance (i suppose it gives you something to do)

but I note you dont, with any enthusiasm and only under duress take a stand against "their " intolerance

how about I am offended by their actions??
how about I am offended by THEM being offended about things that are perfectly acceptable within MY culture??

or am I not allowed to be and only "they" can be offended in your strange and faustian like world?

Ast to why I would want to offend...i cant say personally that I do, but that POV of course is only valid from here....YOU may find my opinions "offensive"
well boo hoo sucks to you ....

see theres the point.....You CANNOT possibly, in any way, hope to accomodate or legislate for "offense" since what one finds acceptable others may not

some folks laugh their socks off at "chubby" brown, Me i find him a nasty offensive little worm
some folks think that fatuous twat off top gear funny, me i find him an insensitive ignorant and offensive boor...
etc etc etc

so you cannot say "why would you want to offend" or you should not offend, because then you silence everything and cover the world in a dead grey blanket lest "someone" be offended.

further freedom of expression and freedom of opinion MUST allow for the right to be "offensive" (because what is offensive is entirely subjective as shown above)
moreover a freedom restricted is NOT a freedom, it is mere concession

freedom of expression and freedom of speech (i.e the right to communicate those opinions) must not be restricted otherwise they are no longer free, the fact that some may abuse it is irelevant and laws which restrict such are merely a sop for lazy government and poor education...(not to mention that "policing" such laws via white elephants like the ehrc are dispropotionately expensive)

Brasidas wrote:




Point 1) Claiming my point is rubbish without even showing it is then is irrelevant.

but i did show how it is rubbish....it is rubbish because you "invented" it and it does not conform to the generally accepted definition of offence

Point 2) Woeful insult normally occurs, after the poster concedes my point

insult?....get real....if you WANT insult I can happily oblige....

Point 3) Contradiction, you just claim they are not factors and then completely admit they are.

NO, again you really need to brush up on your comprehension....I said they were not defining factors (as you claim) but rather that they may be merely one factor that may lead to an offence being felt.

Point 4) It is irrelevant to the point of insulting who a magazine insults, the issue is, why are they insulting , which you admitting is down to an eye for an eye?

where do I say "eye for eye"? I said they have satirised all and any religions (and a lot of other things too...) they did NOT "pick " on any one group....

So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?


I was going to ignore your pathetic attempt to constrain this part of the debate to your own narrow (and incorrect) definitions..

It is not acceptable in debate to attempt apply artificial constraints to an issue merely in order to adress YOUR personal agenda

again you are wrong and apply a false and spurious argument here, one that is not "real"

that is of course that the issue is black/white

no rational person thinks like that and populations do not work like that....one mans meat is another mans poison comes to mind.

further

the subjects you attempt to make an obvious trap out of are in and of them selves cleverly chosen as especially emotive, sadly for your underhand attempt to lay a childish trap, they are also largely irrelevant.

reason

to put it simplistically they are not of the same substance as the so called "insult" to a religion

you are, effectively comparing apples to oranges....

take for instance your first question....


"Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?"

this of course references an historic horror, which is still only too keenly felt today....and thus is NOT a suitable subject for ANY sort of humour  (give it another 1000 years and perhaps that will change...after all people now think its amusing to talk about Harold getting his eye poked out)

the question you SHOULD have asked is

"would you think it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon of yaweh with intent to offend jews...."
" or make a cartoon about circumcision with the same intent

or any other such like issue   NOT the cruel mockery that you suggest.....or are you unable to see the difference yourself???

the same applies to your second question, a real happening still too close to the surface for any sort of humour.

we also have to ask if the INTENT is to deliberately offend or whether the item was published without intent to but in defiance of whether would...(that matters btw....)

as to your third piece of "bait" to your silly trap

you are firstly suggesting that something which is in toto not only illegal but rather disturbing is a subject for humour
and perforce then making the extension that satire is a vehicle for "justifying" ideas or issues.

let us look at that closely

satire does not justify.....anything.....
satire takes the piss
satire ridicules

thats all...it cannot and does not "justify" or excuse and "explain" anything...it is the wrong vehicle for such things...

therefore your third question is totally a diversion ....

so try again to trap me if you wish....but note I dont like sneaky people.

I dont know your intellectual level....I presume from your postings and your subtle traps that its reasonably high, even if not via "formal" learning.

I suspect, though I may be wrong, that you are largely "self taught", if so I raise my hat to you....but please...stop playing games....

risingsun wrote:Blasphemy is still illegal in Ireland. Irish Constitution 40 (6) 1

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:





but i did show how it is rubbish....it is rubbish because you "invented" it and it does not conform to the generally accepted definition of offence

insult?....get real....if you WANT insult I can happily oblige....

NO, again you really need to brush up on your comprehension....I said they were not defining factors (as you claim) but rather that they may be merely one factor that may lead to an offence being felt.



where do I say "eye for eye"? I said they have satirised all and any religions (and a lot of other things too...) they did NOT "pick " on any one group....



I was going to ignore your pathetic attempt to constrain this part of the debate to your own narrow (and incorrect) definitions..

It is not acceptable in debate to attempt apply artificial constraints to an issue merely in order to adress YOUR personal agenda

again you are wrong and apply a false and spurious argument here, one that is not "real"

that is of course that the issue is black/white

no rational person thinks like that and populations do not work like that....one mans meat is another mans poison comes to mind.

further

the subjects you attempt to make an obvious trap out of are in and of them selves cleverly chosen as especially emotive, sadly for your underhand attempt to lay a childish trap, they are also largely irrelevant.

reason

to put it simplistically they are not of the same substance as the so called "insult" to a religion

you are, effectively comparing apples to oranges....

take for instance your first question....


"Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?"

this of course references an historic horror, which is still only too keenly felt today....and thus is NOT a suitable subject for ANY sort of humour  (give it another 1000 years and perhaps that will change...after all people now think its amusing to talk about Harold getting his eye poked out)

the question you SHOULD have asked is

"would you think it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon of yaweh with intent to offend jews...."
" or make a cartoon about circumcision with the same intent

or any other such like issue   NOT the cruel mockery that you suggest.....or are you unable to see the difference yourself???

the same applies to your second question, a real happening still too close to the surface for any sort of humour.

we also have to ask if the INTENT is to deliberately offend or whether the item was published without intent to but in defiance of whether would...(that matters btw....)

as to your third piece of "bait" to your silly trap

you are firstly suggesting that something which is in toto not only illegal but rather disturbing is a subject for humour
and perforce then making the extension that satire is a vehicle for "justifying" ideas or issues.

let us look at that closely

satire does not justify.....anything.....
satire takes the piss
satire ridicules

thats all...it cannot and does not "justify" or excuse and "explain" anything...it is the wrong vehicle for such things...

therefore your third question is totally a diversion ....

so try again to trap me if you wish....but note I dont like sneaky people.

I dont know your intellectual level....I presume from your postings and your subtle traps that its reasonably high, even if not via "formal" learning.

I suspect, though I may be wrong, that you are largely "self taught", if so I raise my hat to you....but please...stop playing games....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

None of the above answered any of my points try again:


Point 1) Claiming my point is rubbish without even showing it is then is irrelevant.


Point 2) Woeful insult normally occurs, after the poster concedes my point

Point 3) Contradiction, you just claim they are not factors and then completely admit they are.

Point 4) It is irrelevant to the point of insulting who a magazine insults, the issue is, why are they insulting , which you admitting is down to an eye for an eye?

So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?

Brasidas wrote:Interesting, how did you know I was Didge?

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:




None of the above answered any of my points try again:


Point 1) Claiming my point is rubbish without even showing it is then is irrelevant.


Point 2) Woeful insult normally occurs, after the poster concedes my point

Point 3) Contradiction, you just claim they are not factors and then completely admit they are.

Point 4) It is irrelevant to the point of insulting who a magazine insults, the issue is, why are they insulting , which you admitting is down to an eye for an eye?

So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?

I did answer ALL of your points, with a long and detailed ponit by point explanation.....if you cant comprehend it thats your problem....
yo see you dont like it because I didnt give the answers YOU wanted to YOUR imagined and irrelevant points, instead i gave corerect answers to your silly trap....
It wont work boyo....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

I did answer ALL of your points, with a long and detailed ponit by point explanation.....if you cant comprehend it thats your problem....
yo see you dont like it because I didnt give the answers YOU wanted to YOUR imagined and irrelevant points, instead i gave corerect answers to your silly trap....
It wont work boyo....

You avoided all the points and until you answer I will continue until you answer, as you gave me lots of deflection but no answers:


Try again


Point 1) Claiming my point is rubbish without even showing it is then is irrelevant.


Point 2) Woeful insult normally occurs, after the poster concedes my point

Point 3) Contradiction, you just claim they are not factors and then completely admit they are.

Point 4) It is irrelevant to the point of insulting who a magazine insults, the issue is, why are they insulting , which you admitting is down to an eye for an eye?

So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Interesting, how did you know I was Didge?

it doesnt take a genius to read back through a board and compare even on a superficial level postings with the same style and content.
I assume you left and then came back....

I'm not psychic.....but I AM smart......

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



You avoided all the points and until you answer I will continue until you answer, as you gave me lots of deflection but no answers:


Try again


Point 1) Claiming my point is rubbish without even showing it is then is irrelevant.


Point 2) Woeful insult normally occurs, after the poster concedes my point

Point 3) Contradiction, you just claim they are not factors and then completely admit they are.

Point 4) It is irrelevant to the point of insulting who a magazine insults, the issue is, why are they insulting , which you admitting is down to an eye for an eye?

So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?

game set and match to me then....

oh well that was easy.....

next...

Brasidas wrote:And you now use a phrase I use ha ha

You keep exposing yourself here darkness, do not worry I will figure it out soon enough

Brasidas wrote:And you now use a phrase I use ha ha

You keep exposing yourself here darkness, do not worry I will figure it out soon enough

Brasidas wrote:No answers try again


Point 1) Claiming my point is rubbish without even showing it is then is irrelevant.


Point 2) Woeful insult normally occurs, after the poster concedes my point

Point 3) Contradiction, you just claim they are not factors and then completely admit they are.

Point 4) It is irrelevant to the point of insulting who a magazine insults, the issue is, why are they insulting , which you admitting is down to an eye for an eye?

So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?

Brasidas wrote:I am not blaming the victims, as all who died today were innocent, I am explaining which you fail to grasp, that people do end up dying because there is nutters out there and even worse those out to offend are willing to happily place the lives of people at risk just to feel good about insulting something.

Ask the victims families if they feel it was worth it?

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I am not blaming the victims, as all who died today were innocent, I am explaining which you fail to grasp, that people do end up dying because there is nutters out there and even worse those out to offend are willing to happily place the lives of people at risk just to feel good about insulting something.

Ask the victims families if they feel it was worth it?

I thought I remembered you saying this

perhaps this .....

http://news.sky.com/video/1404576/paris-editors-partner-speaks-out

answers you point......

Brasidas wrote:There is a word prhase here:

Puppet on a string:


Now you certainly avoided at all cost actually answering the following, we went through this for ages until I got an answer why you think it is acceptable to offend, which you said to fight fire with fire which is an eye for an eye by the way.

I do beleieve you are conflating two seperate answers to two seperate questions....

the "fight fire with fire" comment was about how to deal with the issue of their violence......

the acceptability of offence is something else, as I have been at pains to point out, what constitutes an offence is utterly subjective and so widely open to interpretation that it HAS to be acceptable to offend. otherwise you totally shut down ANY dialogue.
whether it was wise to do so is a seperate issue of course.

Of course there is no argument that is ethically of moral to insult people but again this point you failed to address, so one last chance:

to counter that is the point that there is no ethical argument that it isnt moral to insult people either....




So where do we start with this eye for an eye? The moment a country is invaded, or someone dies? It is a flaw philosophy, when people knowingly are intending to bring about a reaction for their own sake. That is not respecting anyone, but wishing to disrespect people, because you do not like something about them. So lets take this and simplify this for you:

given the fact that the "eye for an eye" argument is not relevant to the "percieved insult" argument the above is not a reasonable question.
given that the eye for an eye" point was made in connection with the violence perpetrated however I can reasonably answer your point (thought its actually fight fire with fire)
and it starts when they think shootin mere journalists is acceptable (in this case)
and no doubt when they are cornered that is exactly what will happen....

Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?

wrong question ..I keep telling you there is NO comparison between this and satirising a religion

look....

they basically said

allah or mohammed or whoever is whatever

they could have said yaweh is a whatever.....

THEY are comparable

they did NOT say the mass murder of god alone knows how many million Muslims at the hands of a despot is funny (and I suspect THAT would rightly get them in deep poo anyway)
so your hypothetical question is not relevant (and would be as wrong besides....)

Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?

as above

Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

I beleive I covered that quite sufficiently....

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.

logic cannot apply, since humans are NOT logical......even reason struggles

Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?




 

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

I thought I remembered you saying this

perhaps this .....

http://news.sky.com/video/1404576/paris-editors-partner-speaks-out

answers you point......

No it answers one person, what about the rest?
The Police officers?
The maintenance man?
How about them?

You see you think because one person speaks out, does it mean all do?
If you do not have all speaking out then you have forgone those who never asked to be put in the firing line.

I KNEW you would say that.......


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/07/financial-times-europe-editor-tony-barber-accuses-charlie-hebdo-of-Muslim-baiting_n_6431346.html?utm_hp_ref=uk#40_gunmen-carried-out-attack-with-military-precision

darknessss wrote:perhaps this is what you want????



will that satisfy you "no offense" program?

darknessss wrote:So what we are seeing here in france, and have see in many other places is that the states concerned can no longer keep up their end of the bargain as concerns their duty to protect their citizens from foreign hostiles. Indeed from ANY hostiles.
Of course the truth of that has been evident from DAY ONE when the various euro states (unlike their sensible American counterparts) disarmed their subjects.

add to the fact it probably suits the powers that be for some attacks to "get thorough" thus providing the excuse for even more intrusive and anti freedom laws.

Of course that doesnt remove the point that this attack COULD have been prevented

darknessss wrote:
I do beleieve you are conflating two seperate answers to two seperate questions....
You believe butare in fact incorrect lacking understanding of context

the "fight fire with fire" comment was about how to deal with the issue of their violence......
Which is basically an eye for an eye, it is hitting back in retaliation, which is a vicious circle, which never accomplishes anything. The one thing shown with Mandela for example was when he had freedom and Apartheid ended he did not seek to retaliate, that had been tried and had achieve only suffering, what he looked to do was bring about reconsilliation

the acceptability of offence is something else, as I have been at pains to point out, what constitutes an offence is utterly subjective and so widely open to interpretation that it HAS to be acceptable to offend. otherwise you totally shut down ANY dialogue.
whether it was wise to do so is a seperate issue of course.
You fail to grasp this point what you provide is levels to how we all deal with an offense not that where something is intended to offend, it is setting out to affect the well being of someone. Whether you shrug this off others do not or should not even have to deal with the point you are neglecting at every point.
Nothing is open to interpretation, if you set to demean someone with offense, you intention is to offend them, whether that person takes offense will be different on the individual, but the intent is to affect the well being of that person or their equality

to counter that is the point that there is no ethical argument that it isnt moral to insult people either....
Gobbledygook, there is no moral reason or justification to insult anyone

given the fact that the "eye for an eye" argument is not relevant to the "percieved insult" argument the above is not a reasonable question.
It is very relevant as the bases seen above with fighting fire with fire is revenge

given that the eye for an eye"  point was made in connection with the violence perpetrated however I can reasonably answer your point (thought its actually fight fire with fire)
and it starts when they think shootin mere journalists is acceptable (in this case)
and no doubt when they are cornered that is exactly what will happen....
Nobody has claimed it is acceptable to shoot journalists, what you are getting wrong here is who you wish to fight this fire with? Is it the murders of Islam itself and its followers. If you want to fight the murderers, you have my blessing to do so. If your view to fight fire with fire it is to go after other Islamic extremists you have my blessing. Both the previous are people affecting the well being and equality of people. Starting to see the point? If your view to fight fire with fire onto a faith and this placing those who follow this faith to attack them based off the murderers coming from this faith, then you are then using the same immoral standards of those who murdered the journalists. Do you understand that? You are making people culpable for the actions of others. Do you every time there is a man abuse a child, ask every man to stand up and apologise on behalf of men for this crime? Of course not but because of an association of religion, you expect this and also wish to cast people as if they are one. It fails to understand how that view brings about an even worse situation that is field by more hate and more divide

wrong question ..I keep telling you there is NO comparison between this and satirising a religion
It is not the wrong question and why I keep bring up, because you do not understand logic and the principles around a view to offend

look....
they basically said
allah or mohammed or whoever is whatever
they could have said yaweh is a whatever.....
THEY are comparable

All irrelevant, the principle here is to make fun of something though a cartoon, so if the view is to make fun of something through a cartoon or satirizing you are still able to do this about anything as I stated like doing so against Jews, of which has been done by the way, by the Nazis for example.
So again do you understand this principle?
You can not claim one is okay to do and another not okay to do, the method is the same, you either believe something i wrong or right to do, so again I will ask one again:
Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?


Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?



Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.
Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?




 

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:
I do beleieve you are conflating two seperate answers to two seperate questions....
You believe butare in fact incorrect lacking understanding of context

the "fight fire with fire" comment was about how to deal with the issue of their violence......
Which is basically an eye for an eye, it is hitting back in retaliation, which is a vicious circle, which never accomplishes anything. The one thing shown with Mandela for example was when he had freedom and Apartheid ended he did not seek to retaliate, that had been tried and had achieve only suffering, what he looked to do was bring about reconsilliation

the acceptability of offence is something else, as I have been at pains to point out, what constitutes an offence is utterly subjective and so widely open to interpretation that it HAS to be acceptable to offend. otherwise you totally shut down ANY dialogue.
whether it was wise to do so is a seperate issue of course.
You fail to grasp this point what you provide is levels to how we all deal with an offense not that where something is intended to offend, it is setting out to affect the well being of someone. Whether you shrug this off others do not or should not even have to deal with the point you are neglecting at every point.
Nothing is open to interpretation, if you set to demean someone with offense, you intention is to offend them, whether that person takes offense will be different on the individual, but the intent is to affect the well being of that person or their equality

to counter that is the point that there is no ethical argument that it isnt moral to insult people either....
Gobbledygook, there is no moral reason or justification to insult anyone

given the fact that the "eye for an eye" argument is not relevant to the "percieved insult" argument the above is not a reasonable question.
It is very relevant as the bases seen above with fighting fire with fire is revenge

given that the eye for an eye"  point was made in connection with the violence perpetrated however I can reasonably answer your point (thought its actually fight fire with fire)
and it starts when they think shootin mere journalists is acceptable (in this case)
and no doubt when they are cornered that is exactly what will happen....
Nobody has claimed it is acceptable to shoot journalists, what you are getting wrong here is who you wish to fight this fire with? Is it the murders of Islam itself and its followers. If you want to fight the murderers, you have my blessing to do so. If your view to fight fire with fire it is to go after other Islamic extremists you have my blessing. Both the previous are people affecting the well being and equality of people. Starting to see the point?  If your view to fight fire with fire onto a faith and this placing those who follow this faith to attack them based off the murderers coming from this faith, then you are then using the same immoral standards of those who murdered the journalists. Do you understand that? You are making people culpable for the actions of others. Do you every time there is a man abuse a child, ask every man to stand up and apologise on behalf of men for this crime? Of course not but because of an association of religion, you expect this and also wish to cast people as if they are one. It fails to understand how that view brings about an even worse situation that is field by more hate and more divide

wrong question ..I keep telling you there is NO comparison between this and satirising a religion
It is not the wrong question and why I keep bring up, because you do not understand logic and the principles around a view to offend

look....
they basically said
allah or mohammed or whoever is whatever
they could have said yaweh is a whatever.....
THEY are comparable

All irrelevant, the principle here is to make fun of something though a cartoon, so if the view is to make fun of something through a cartoon or satirizing you are still able to do this about anything as I stated like doing so against Jews, of which has been done by the way, by the Nazis for example.
So again do you understand this principle?
You can not claim one is okay to do and another not okay to do, the method is the same, you either believe something i wrong or right to do, so again I will ask one again:
Would you think it is acceptable for someone to publish in a cartoon of Jews being put into ovens with the intent to offend Jews?  


Would you find it acceptable for someone to publish a cartoon to portray Modern Blacks as slaves, with the intent to offend them?



Would it be acceptable to portray children in a lovers embrace with adults, as if to justify making it acceptable for underage sex?

This is important on how you answer, as only one rule will apply here. Either something is acceptable, or it is not acceptable, there are no levels, as the logic will determine if right or wrong.
Which will bring us back to the well being and equality of people.

So would any of the above offend your soul and of yes would you like most rational people show outrage?




 

darknessss wrote:wrong veya


the right wing know that the second is what the left wing preach

but the first is what they do...........

veya_victaous wrote:

darknessss wrote:wrong veya


the right wing know that the second is what the left wing preach

but the first is what they do...........

LOL
NOPE we can see you saying "You want it to all Be blank we'll have nothing, we have to Blah blah blah{cries of the terrified}"

I say break one today and we will have two tomorrow.

http://mic.com/articles/107908/why-every-newspaper-should-reprint-the-muhammad-cartoons-by-charlie-hebdo

Brasidas wrote:So I see yet again darkness has avoided answering simple question and how long did it take just to get an answer on why he thought it okay to offend?

How long will I have to wait this time?

darknessss wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

darknessss wrote:wrong veya


the right wing know that the second is what the left wing preach

but the first is what they do...........

LOL
NOPE we can see you saying "You want it to all Be blank we'll have nothing, we have to Blah blah blah{cries of the terrified}"

I say break one today and we will have two tomorrow.

http://mic.com/articles/107908/why-every-newspaper-should-reprint-the-muhammad-cartoons-by-charlie-hebdo

So I take it you actually agree with me that whilst the wisdom of publishing as they did may be questionable (from a self preservation POV) the right to do so is inviolate?

I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” –Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier (1967 – 2015), publisher, Charlie Hebdo.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:So I see yet again darkness has avoided answering simple question and how long did it take just to get an answer on why he thought it okay to offend?

How long will I have to wait this time?

forever...beacuse i'm not playing your stupid games....

you invent you own fatuous world and apply its dictats to the real world.....

it doesnt work....go live in your fantasy if you want....me...meh.....I'll stick to reality....

veya_victaous wrote:

darknessss wrote:

So I take it you actually agree with me that whilst the wisdom of publishing as they did may be questionable (from a self preservation POV) the right to do so is inviolate?

Definitely
Better to Die on your feet than live on your knees  

I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” –Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier (1967 – 2015), publisher, Charlie Hebdo.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Oh dear, so now you concede

Thanks was fun

and think I know who you are now