Not so.Tobias Funke said:I'm pretty sure that governments already do all of that, ...
It's a slippery slope. What will they demand next time?I_am_learning said:but is freedom of ridicule really necessary?
Tobias Funke said:I also believe that just as many Muslim immigrants know they have to obey the laws as American or Chinese immigrants.
Yes, the freedom is necessary, though the ridicule may or may not be. And with it comes consequences; the possibility of speech directed back at the source, but not a massacre.I_am_learning said:but is freedom of ridicule really necessary?
I_am_learning said:Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary?
The manhunt led authorities to the home of 18-year-old suspect Hamyd Mourad. The two other suspects were identified as homegrown terrorists Said Kouachi, 32, and Cherif Kouachi, 34;
I am not advocating to fulfill their demands. I am just just suggesting not to do unnecessary things that can clearly result in violent retaliation. And it is we who are making the decision, not granting them the right, so I don't see a chance of slippery slope.Greg Bernhardt said:It's a slippery slope. What will they demand next time?
wiki said:In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process that leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B. Modern usage avoids the fallacy by acknowledging the possibility of this middle ground.
What they think is unnecessary I most certainty can guarantee is not what you think is unnecessary. You are not dealing with logical people that behave civilly. You are missing the point to all of this. If not this cartoon, then something else. Non believers are infidels. They will think of something that offends them. Once you appease them to no end you'll be left with only one thing left to do and that is to convert.I_am_learning said:suggesting not to do unnecessary things
I_am_learning said:I am not advocating to fulfill their demands. I am just just suggesting not to do unnecessary things that can clearly result in violent retaliation.
If a dog bit you just because you made a face, the dog would be considered dangerous and NOT NORMAL, it's a stupid analogy.I_am_learning said:So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad. I have't heard violence in retaliation on a non-ridiculing and factual articles comparing and contrasting the problems in Islam.
Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary? Ok, let's not modify the law on freedom of expression to exclude ridicule, because the demarcation might be difficult and prone to abuse, but can't everybody agree to use their own common sense and not ridicule the ISLAM?
For example, If your dog would bite you every-time you make a face to it, isn't it wise to stop doing it? at-least until you have trained it to not bite. You might feel that its your right to make face, and the dog should only retaliate by making face itself, but isn't it wise to be be pragmatic and realize that you live together with a dog who doesn't share your thought about freedom?
Normal people would not take offense. This is what is wrong with Islam. You do not see this craziness and violence in other religions. I'm not even aware of the craziest of fundamental Christians going out and killing innocent people because they make jokes about Jesus.So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad
I compared "those who resort to violence in retaliation to ridicule/criticism/non-belief" to a biting dog, not all of the Muslims.nikkkom said:In your post, you compared them to a biting dog. This means that somehow you hold them to a lesser moral standard than other people. Somehow, it "okay" for them to kill people for drawing a cartoon, yet it's not okay if e.g. Christians would do this for a caricature of Jesus.
Are you advocating different rights for different people based on religion?
It's not just Islam though. It's very much cultural. Hate for the west is breed into people in certain places in the middle east. You don't see Indonesian jihadists.Evo said:This is what is wrong with Islam
That may very well be true.Greg Bernhardt said:It's not just Islam though. It's very much cultural. Hate for the west is breed into people in certain places in the middle east. You don't see Indonesian jihadists.
East of the Nile and west of the Khyber Pass is a rough rule of thumb.Greg Bernhardt said:Hate for the west is breed into people in certain places in the middle east.
No, you train the dog to stop the behavior or have him put down, you do not accept it. He could attack some innocent child. So please stop the ridiculous analogy.I_am_learning said:I compared "those who resort to violence in retaliation to ridicule/criticism/non-belief" to a biting dog, not all of the Muslims.
And I never said its 'okay' for the dog to bite me for making a face, but a dog does what a dog does, and if you can't correct, you may as-well euthanize it. But, having the knowledge that you live around dogs, who would bite for making a face, eating your breakfast, or just randomly, you can reduce your chance of getting bitten by stopping doing the least important thing: making a face.
I_am_learning said:I compared "those who resort to violence in retaliation to ridicule/criticism/non-belief" to a biting dog, not all of the Muslims.
And I never said its 'okay' for the dog to bite me for making a face, but a dog does what a dog does
Greg Bernhardt said:You don't see Indonesian jihadists.
I am sorry if my analogy is offending you.Evo said:No, you train the dog to stop the behavior or have him put down, you do not accept it. He could attack some innocent child. So stop the ridiculous analogy.
And Christians, and ...nikkkom said:those cartoonists drew cartoons about Jews too!
How many people are you willing to have running every aspect of your life? Westerners are prone to telling such people to "get over themselves." Live and let live, offend and be offended --- these things are all a matter of personal choice. I'll go out of my way to be civil, not profane another's religion, but I'll not have my life run or dictated by that religion.I_am_learning said:Maybe be I miss the point because I am not a consumer of ridicule-jokes and maybe I am just too coward.
The fact that in a free society, we do not have to live in fear of religious persecution.I_am_learning said:What is to be gained through those cartoons besides laughter and ridicule, to worth the risk?.
Removing the fear of religious persecution is a great cause indeed, and I salute Charlie Hebdo for the bravery to fight for it.Evo said:The fact that in a free society, we do not have to live in fear of religious persecution.
Like talked above, it seems that once in a while, somebody has to profane a̶n̶o̶t̶h̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶l̶i̶g̶i̶o̶n̶ religions, to establish that you should be allowed to do that.Bystander said:I'll go out of my way to be civil, not profane another's religion
PF does.DavidSnider said:http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/charlie-hebdo-terror-attack-media-mohammed-cartoons/index.html
Almost nobody will show the cartoons.
This is appalling, how can one make up a religion, then make rules that apply to those that do not belong to that religion? This is cowardice, not respect. The rules of their religion only apply to those that choose to believe in that religion, they do not apply to me or anyone else not belonging to that religion. The insanity has to stop.DavidSnider said:http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/07/media/charlie-hebdo-terror-attack-media-mohammed-cartoons/index.html
Almost nobody will show the cartoons.
We may just have to wait 30 more years. The Middle East has had value to the West since the Crusades -- then for religious reasons, now for oil. In 30 years or so, we won't have any more reason to try to engage them (positively or negatively), so the conflicts may just evaporate due to lack of interest.Dotini said:Agreed. We need a less obvious way to end the violence, but what is it? Perhaps a time machine and a little chat with Sykes and Picot? Really, it all began at the Crusades.
I'm not sure it would be easy, but we do take it serously and we have had good success on that front. Al Qaeda peaked on 9/11/01 (not too far above 8/7/98) and has been in decline ever since 9/11 caused us to take notice and action. If this attack proves to be Al Qaeda coordinated (some analysis is suggesting it may be), it would be the first successful al Qaeda attack on Western soil since 9/11 -- and not for lack of trying.nikkkom said:It's quite easy to end this kind of violence, as soon as you remove ideological blinders that "all religions are equal" and "police can't racially or religiously profile people".
Governments should take the threat of Islamist terror seriously. They should start serious counter-espionage operations against them.
Be...cause...it's...illegal? Why is it illegal? 4th Amendment? Frankly, this line of discussion is a little disturbing to me.As in: bugging mosques with mics and cameras. Why is it not okay, again?
They have and have been quite successful. Example (not Al Qaeda):Finding terrorists via undercover agents pretending to sell weapons/explosives, or disseminating extremist Islamist literature.
...StephaneCharbonnier, the paper’s publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didn’t understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, “Muhammad isn’t sacred to me.” Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isn’t sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
"Satanic Verses"? In any case:I_am_learning said:So many revenge-violence have had occurred due to ridiculing of the ISLAM or Prophet Muhammad. I have't heard violence in retaliation on a non-ridiculing and factual articles comparing and contrasting the problems in Islam.
You do understand that pretty well, but note that it isn't just difficult: the problem is that it requires a government office (probably the FCC) to monitor and judge speech. That's just not kosher in a society that values freedom of speech. (I need to get back to that "Interview" thread...)Freedom of expression is necessary for advancement of mankind and to challenge the state, but is freedom of ridicule really necessary? Ok, let's not modify the law on freedom of expression to exclude ridicule, because the demarcation might be difficult and prone to abuse...
That's a really poorly chosen analogy for making your point: dogs who bite people a lot get put down.For example, If your dog would bite you every-time you make a face to it, isn't it wise to stop doing it?
Here's the list (not that it is very coherent), straight from the horse's mouth (not that he has a mouth anymore): http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/nov/24/theobserverGreg Bernhardt said:It's a slippery slope. What will they demand next time?