Paris Attack

The satirical magazine in question is a business. The product on offer: mockery of other people. It's a good business model. We're going to make money by mocking other people. Other people will be the butt of our jokes. This'll be great, we'll look clever at somebody elses' expense, put food in our belly, clothes on our backs and be celebrated. As a troll, I'm deeply envious.

edit, victims of our mockery will take it and if not, everybody will rush to our defence.
 
Last edited:
1. The attackers are not Muslim no matter what they say. They are nothing but people justifying their actions by soothing themselves with religious rhetoric

2. The same type of idiots (the Taliban) bombed and killed 200 Muslim children in Pakistan 3 weeks ago and there was no big up roar.

3. I am all for free speech.. You want to talk about God or Muhammad or Jesus or any religion well that's your right. BUT why can't you talk about Jews and homosexuals any longer and not be crucified for it. Why is it freedom of speech when it comes to religioun bashing but it is offensive to human rights when you talk about Jews and homosexuals

I called into talk radio this morning to mention this point when they heard what I wanted to say they did not put me on air with mark stein who was the guest speaker

Last but not least read this

http://m.mic.com/articles/107926/on...-big-problem-with-how-we-talk-about-terrorism

b97d6eb4501390f86e5b4cb920817be1.jpg



"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
 
Matt Rain said:
Free speech, religion and offensive cartoons are not even close to being the sole issues here. Disenfranchised French Arabs have been an issue for decades. They get treated like second-rate citizens, like blacks are in many US States.
Click to expand...

Is France the only place they can live? I'm sure there's other countries they could move to where they wouldn't be disenfranchised. The welfare/social services may not be quite as good, but ..........
 
Well
cbcanada said:
3. I am all for free speech.. You want to talk about God or Muhammad or Jesus or any religion well that's your right. BUT why can't you talk about Jews and homosexuals any longer and not be crucified for it. Why is it freedom of speech when it comes to religioun bashing but it is offensive to human rights when you talk about Jews and homosexuals
Click to expand...

If gays had a god, they likely would have drawn pictures of him too




OH WAIT IT'S THE SAME ONES
 
Last edited:
I like how people always say you cant talk about Gays yet..the FRC still seem to be doing swift business and putting out tons of anti gay crap. same with storm front for the Jews and the whole 911 truth movement seems to be full of anti semtic stuff.. as far as i know they can all have websites.
 
Motorcycle Mike said:
Un-freaking-believable... there is actually a topic that I agree with Schneller and Two50noob on... I must be running a fever.
Click to expand...
That is a very "right" thing for Schneller to agree on, and I have a feeling he agreed upon this not because of proper judgment but because he's lost an argument too many times to CanadianBiker
 
Here's my input, nobody should be judge, jury & execution. Nobody should be killed because they used hurtful words
 
My position is this

People have the right to protlitize and evangelize their own particular version of a god or gods be it fundamental Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu or even the Church of Scientology. I really don't care.

I, however, do have the right of rebuttal, and If that rebuttal takes the form of satire (not mockery as stated above) then so be it. If religious fundamentalists are allowed to express their views and force their believes on me then why can't I refute those beliefs without fear reprisals - whether it be fundamentalist Muslims with guns or Scientologists with law suits.

This clearly demonstrates their lack of faith. if they actually believed in a god why wouldn't they leave it up to him or her to punish the non believer.

Having said all that I'll leave you with the words of Dave Allen who IMHO had much more insight into the human condition than any priest, imam or rabbi - "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"
 
Satire quickly becomes mockery when you don't agree with the message. Much like sarcasm on a forum becomes hurtful not funny when misinterpreted.
 
Delboy said:
My position is this

I, however, do have the right of rebuttal, and If that rebuttal takes the form of satire (not mockery as stated above) then so be it. If religious fundamentalists are allowed to express their views and force their believes on me then why can't I refute those beliefs without fear reprisals - whether it be fundamentalist Muslims with guns or Scientologists with law suits.
Click to expand...

I agree with this but imho there is more to it than that. My beef is with agenda driven media machines that make hay at other people's expense. Every citizen is a member of various distinct groups. Just one example of hundreds, say you're a motorcyclist and the Hollywood culture machine debases you and your kind at every opportunity while turning a handsome profit and, more importantly, materially impacting how the rest of society views and treats you. You have no recourse but to lick your wounds and grouse amongst your loser friends. Or do you?
 
RockerGuy said:
That is a very "right" thing for Schneller to agree on, and I have a feeling he agreed upon this not because of proper judgment but because he's lost an argument too many times to CanadianBiker
Click to expand...

You are wrong, yet again.
 
All ******** dead and gladly so although I was hoping some of them might be taken alive for some french police hospitality. Onto the matter at hand....since when did the sentence for poor taste (the cartoons etc) become death? Whether you agree with the cartoons or mockery or not, they are legal expressions in the countries they were published in. They might not be legal in more oppressive regimes but as long as they are not inciting violence they are perfectly legal here. Those that don't like this expression of free speech and the rule of secular law are free to live in countries where there is no protection of free speech or where laws are based on religious edicts. Again, some stuff may be in poor taste, plenty of stuff offends me, but I don't want to assassinate those that do offend my sensibilities as that's not what we do in a civilised society.
 
And now some Ottawa Imam suggests that religious satirical cartoons should be illegal:

news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/09/satirical-depictions-of-religious-leaders-should-be-illegal-says-ottawa-imam/

An Ottawa imam has denounced the terrorist attack on a Paris weekly newspaper that killed 12 people, but he says satirical cartoons of religious leaders should be illegal.

Imtiaz Ahmed, an imam with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, said it should be against the law to publish cartoons that depict religious figures in a derogatory way.


“Of course we defend freedom of speech, but it has to be balanced. There has to be a limit. There has to be a code of conduct,” Ahmed said.
Click to expand...
 
jc100 said:
All ******** dead and gladly so although I was hoping some of them might be taken alive for some french police hospitality. Onto the matter at hand....since when did the sentence for poor taste (the cartoons etc) become death? Whether you agree with the cartoons or mockery or not, they are legal expressions in the countries they were published in. They might not be legal in more oppressive regimes but as long as they are not inciting violence they are perfectly legal here. Those that don't like this expression of free speech and the rule of secular law are free to live in countries where there is no protection of free speech or where laws are based on religious edicts. Again, some stuff may be in poor taste, plenty of stuff offends me, but I don't want to assassinate those that do offend my sensibilities as that's not what we do in a civilised society.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but anyone here or in the States who would *constantly* make fun of, I don't know, hip hop culture or any other subculture would be silenced very quickly. We may claim to be ambassadors of free speech, but we actually have a very low tolerance for hate speech.

Charlie Hebdo was provoking in a desperate attempt to sell copies. It is/was a failing print magazine like the rest of them, but they trolled hard to try and get people to take notice and buy the magazine, with poor results. That makes the killings seem even more senseless. But it's hard to believe that something like Charlie Hebdo would be tolerated here or in the US. Our xenophobes are a lot meeker and more tolerant to difference.

(Op-ed feuds between Ford Nation and/or the "downtown libtards" is not even close to what CH was doing.)

Again, not saying these shitstains were justified in killing. Just saying that it's a different world out there.
 
Last edited:
Matt Rain said:
I would agree, but anyone here or in the States who would *constantly* make fun of, I don't know, hip hop culture or any other subculture would be silenced very quickly. We have a very low tolerance for hate speech.
Click to expand...

I'd have no problem making a direct line to womens concerns regarding the cosmetics, diet, fashion, porno, entertainment, etc. industries. It's brutal how they're being manipulated, yet it's so everyday that nobody notices. Not easy to feel good about yourself under that pressure unless you have your head screwed on real tight and your feet firmly on the ground. Those industries have created a false reality for women and profit off of it. Should the men driving that agenda get a free pass? Same thing as above imho.
 
Last edited:
All of it is pretty mindless, but I'm not sure I would trace a direct line between consumerist propaganda and religious bashing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom