Shooting in Paris

[tonyhays 86]

Two sides of the same coin? Are you serious??? One side drawing offensive cartoons and the other committing murder because of it.

Seems like two very different coins to me.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

[jakee 1,500]

Skyrad

******Hornets are sentient beings, you clearly don't understand the term.

Oh, ok then. Hornets are intelligent so it's totally ok to compare them with humans, but it makes no sense to compare humans with humans. Right.

Dude, take a step back and think about what you're saying right now.

Sentience is not related to intelligence if it were there would be several non sentient beings on this thread.

I think you know that's not the relevant part of the reply (although if you want to go down that road I'd say that you're stretching the definition of sentient to breaking point and that sentience and intelligence are intrinsically linked since you need a certain amount of brain power to process sensory data).

The bit you need to think about is that in order to defend your point you have claimed that it makes more sense to compare humans with hornets than humans with humans. Do you not think that makes you look a little desperate? Do you not think it speaks to the strength of your argument?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Your stupid girlfriend analogy is in your parlance and misunderstanding of the term 'non sentient'.

Did Rushmc write that sentence? How about you try that response again when you've calmed down enough to write in english instead of gobbledegook.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Skyrad

Thats a really stupid thing to say. If I didn't know better I'd suspect that GW Bush was on the other side of the internet writing as Jakee. 'You either with us or against us' disappointing to see you grab the argument of the simpleton with both hands so willingly.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

Personally, I'd say it is the argument of the morally bankrupt to blame the victim for the actions of their attackers.

It is absolutely, precisely the same as blaming women for the actions of rapists, and if you don't like that analogy it's only because you don't like seeing yourself in that mirror.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

tonyhays

Two sides of the same coin? Are you serious??? One side drawing offensive cartoons and the other committing murder because of it.

Seems like two very different coins to me.

Straight from the left wing play book it seems

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/seven-shoddy-excuses-lefties-use-to-justify-the-massacres-in-paris/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,500]

rushmc

Straight from the left wing play book it seems

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/seven-shoddy-excuses-lefties-use-to-justify-the-massacres-in-paris/

Except that on the evidence in this thread, it's the right wing playbook.

Oh, and I had to laugh at point 2 on that list where Delingpole (a known arsehole) rants about the Telegraph (a right wing broadsheet) for simply using the word 'offensive' in relation to the cartoons. It seems like he wants to muzzle the press in the same way that the people he's criticizing supposedly want to muzzle the cartoonists.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

I answered your questions, either you did not read them, or you did not like the answers I gave, either way deal with it.

Quote

And I noticed that you skipped the bit where I asked you to show when you had condemned the terrorists rather than the victims

-post #221 Im not saying BOOO free speech, and im not saying YAYY terrorism
-post #229 Is free speech good HELL YEA, is terrorism bad FUCK YEA, did he deserve to die NOPE, but there are consequences to your actions.

Quote

, and that you skipped the bit where I asked you if you blamed the ISIS beheading victims as much as you blame the cartoonists.

-Post #235 Yea I skipped it because to my knowledge James and Peter were not over there burning the Quran, or drawing inciteful pictures of Mohammad, so its a fucking useless topic to address as it has no comparison to what happened in France.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[rushmc 23]

jakee

***Straight from the left wing play book it seems

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/12/seven-shoddy-excuses-lefties-use-to-justify-the-massacres-in-paris/

Except that on the evidence in this thread, it's the right wing playbook.

Oh, and I had to laugh at point 2 on that list where Delingpole (a known arsehole) rants about the Telegraph (a right wing broadsheet) for simply using the word 'offensive' in relation to the cartoons. It seems like he wants to muzzle the press in the same way that the people he's criticizing supposedly want to muzzle the cartoonists.

Some good points
Many knives have two sharp edges

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

Personally, I'd say it is the argument of the morally bankrupt to blame the victim for the actions of their attackers.

Your argument appears to be from those who cant take responsibility for their own actions. I bet daddy bought you a new car every time you dented yours diddn't he. He probably told you it was always the other drivers fault huh.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I answered your questions, either you did not read them, or you did not like the answers I gave, either way deal with it.

No, you have quite clearly refused to answer the question. If you think otherwise, show me where you answered.

Quote

post #221 Im not saying BOOO free speech, and im not saying YAYY terrorism
-post #229 Is free speech good HELL YEA, is terrorism bad FUCK YEA, did he deserve to die NOPE, but there are consequences to your actions.

Y'know what? I'm a lot better at this than you are, but I'm not clairvoyant. Post #229 was made after the post of mine that you were replying to. So, up until that point, what exactly had you said "many times?"

Quote

-Post #235 Yea I skipped it because to my knowledge James and Peter were not over there burning the Quran, or drawing inciteful pictures of Mohammad, so its a fucking useless topic to address as it has no comparison to what happened in France.

So those are the only things that make people responsible for terrorist actions taken against them? Drawing rude pictures in your own country does make you responsible for inciting terrorism but actually going to the extremists territory to write stuff about them doesn't make you responsible. Have I got that about right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Anvilbrother

Quote

Personally, I'd say it is the argument of the morally bankrupt to blame the victim for the actions of their attackers.

Your argument appears to be from those who cant take responsibility for their own actions. I bet daddy bought you a new car every time you dented yours diddn't he. He probably told you it was always the other drivers fault huh.

If that's all you've got left you should realise it's time to give up.

But if you want to keep playing on that level, I bet your dad beat up all the kids who were mean to you at school and told you they had it coming.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

Personally, I'd say it is the argument of the morally bankrupt to blame the victim for the actions of their attackers.

I think there are only a couple people doing that. But most are not. Either way, it's a crappy strawman and you're just trying to spin up (successfully ) a couple people.


The bar/tavern analogy is accurate but not complete. The asshole yelling out insults is not just trading jokes with his buddies. He is Intentionally try to start something. Then, when he gets beat up, he cries foul/fowl.

1 - Frankly, he should be able to be a total and loud asshole and he "shouldn't" get beat up. But he's still an asshole. Not a hero of free speech, for sure.

2 - No one is surprised he got beat up (I think that's the gist of most of the posts you are trying take offense at).

3 - regardless, the attacker is 100% responsible for the attack - those that don't agree with this have some weird agenda they are trying to push (IMO)

Some observer in the bar saying, "wow, that asshole was just looking to get punched" is not 'excusing' the behavior of the attacker, he's just commenting on how it came about.


I think comparing "Charlie" to those guys from Westboro is a better comparison. They are assholes, but they don't get beat up or killed. "Charlie" is an asshole, purposely trying to incite a 'response', but the guys he attacked responded 100% in the wrong. The statement of the problem is how the 'beehive' reacts to the poking.


The right to ANY type of speech, no matter how offensive or what buttons it's intent to push are, should be protected. If we really mean it, we have to protect trolls no matter what.


These murderers could take a page from the people opposing the Westboro crowd.

Blockades, ignoring them, mockery, derision, counter protests, law suits = good

Killing, attacking injuring = seriously wrong

Trying to change governments to get laws changed to their restrictive philosophy = fundamentally wrong and insidious


the most that can be done with media and speech is have a discussion about the idea of it being a responsibility to try to have productive and courteous speech. but that has to be VOLUNTARY on the part of the cartoonists and writers. and you don't sell a lot of copy with that method.

I really hate shock journalism. I think it's destructive and lazy and opportunistic and makes everything worse that these juveniles claim they are exercising. That said, it has to be protected because the limits of freedom need to be protected so the heart of freedoms don't get abused.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 806]

So last night I noticed my wife watching some awards show.
They did a very insulting skit that was a direct insult to Our Supreme Leader.
If we get nuked by North Korea, your mindset would say that it was a justified nuking.

That's wrong.

Religious extremists don't get to dictate what others do.
Convert or die must be eliminated entirely.

[BillyVance 34]

rehmwa

***Personally, I'd say it is the argument of the morally bankrupt to blame the victim for the actions of their attackers.

I think there are only a couple people doing that. But most are not. Either way, it's a crappy strawman and you're just trying to spin up (successfully ) a couple people.


The bar/tavern analogy is accurate but not complete. The asshole yelling out insults is not just trading jokes with his buddies. He is Intentionally try to start something. Then, when he gets beat up, he cries foul/fowl.

1 - Frankly, he should be able to be a total and loud asshole and he "shouldn't" get beat up. But he's still an asshole. Not a hero of free speech, for sure.

2 - No one is surprised he got beat up (I think that's the gist of most of the posts you are trying take offense at).

3 - regardless, the attacker is 100% responsible for the attack - those that don't agree with this have some weird agenda they are trying to push (IMO)

Some observer in the bar saying, "wow, that asshole was just looking to get punched" is not 'excusing' the behavior of the attacker, he's just commenting on how it came about.


I think comparing "Charlie" to those guys from Westboro is a better comparison. They are assholes, but they don't get beat up or killed. "Charlie" is an asshole, purposely trying to incite a 'response', but the guys he attacked responded 100% in the wrong. The statement of the problem is how the 'beehive' reacts to the poking.


The right to ANY type of speech, no matter how offensive or what buttons it's intent to push are, should be protected. If we really mean it, we have to protect trolls no matter what.


These murderers could take a page from the people opposing the Westboro crowd.

Blockades, ignoring them, mockery, derision, counter protests, law suits = good

Killing, attacking injuring = seriously wrong

Trying to change governments to get laws changed to their restrictive philosophy = fundamentally wrong and insidious


the most that can be done with media and speech is have a discussion about the idea of it being a responsibility to try to have productive and courteous speech. but that has to be VOLUNTARY on the part of the cartoonists and writers. and you don't sell a lot of copy with that method.

I really hate shock journalism. I think it's destructive and lazy and opportunistic and makes everything worse that these juveniles claim they are exercising. That said, it has to be protected because the limits of freedom need to be protected so the heart of freedoms don't get abused.

Well said.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[rehmwa 2]

BillyVance

Well said.

It's just....

the staff at Charlie Hedbo are NOT heroes - they are instigators (but still just doing their jobs because that IS their job).


the heroes will be those people that step up and protect the right of "Charlie Hebdo"s to write and say anything and everything and feel able to do that without being slaughtered. Maybe insulted, protested against, mocked, derided for being classless and non-value added, litigated against, etc.

But not physically attacked and killed. And not obstructed by any government either.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[BillyVance 34]

rehmwa

***
Well said.

It's just....

the staff at Charlie Hedbo are NOT heroes - they are instigators (but still just doing their jobs because that IS their job).


the heroes will be those people that step up and protect the right of "Charlie Hebdo"s to write and say anything and everything and feel able to do that without being slaughtered. Maybe insulted, protested against, mocked, derided for being classless and non-value added, litigated against, etc.

But not physically attacked and killed. And not obstructed by any government either.

I agree... People should be able to do their jobs without being attacked or killed.

These radicals need to be eliminated or put where they can't do any harm.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Anvilbrother 0]

I will lay it out for you jakee so you can move on to posting more insane reasons why you cant see how the attacks were provocated.

-History since 2011 of publishing intentional bigoted drawings and specialized in Islamophobia. Not terrorists which all countries have made fun of, but the Muslim religion as a whole.
-Was fire bombed, and had many ongoing death threats.
-Defied the French governments advice and after appearing on a list of Al Qaeda’s targets, was under government protection
-The editorial director lashed out and stated he was ready to die for the cause, and would rather die standing than live on his knees
-Published a picture of a hapless-looking man, dressed in the style of many Islamic extremists, under the words “still no attacks in France.” The extremist, in a speech bubble, pointed out that he had until the end of January to present his New Year’s wishes.
-After that the foreign minister at the time Laurent Fabius stated “Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?” When they were forced to close French embassies, consulates, cultural centers and schools in about 20 countries.

Does everyone deserve free speech YES. Does anyone deserve to die because of it NO. Is terrorism bad YES. The murders by the terrorists are horrible overreaction, that deserves the harshest punishment YES.

Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get what they were asking for. Sadly YES. Im not saying its good, or its right, but if you cant see the chain of events that led to this your blind. Remove the links of continued bigoted, and hatred comics towards Muslims put out BY Charlie Hebdo, and led by Charb and their deaths would have not happened that day.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Skyrad 0]

normiss

So last night I noticed my wife watching some awards show.
They did a very insulting skit that was a direct insult to Our Supreme Leader.
If we get nuked by North Korea, your mindset would say that it was a justified nuking...

FFS, seriously??

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

I think there are only a couple people doing that. But most are not.

I'm not talking to most.

Quote

Either way, it's a crappy strawman and you're just trying to spin up (successfully ) a couple people.

It's not a strawman.

Quote

2 - No one is surprised he got beat up (I think that's the gist of most of the posts you are trying take offense at).

Then maybe you should look again.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Skyrad 0]

Anvilbrother

I will lay it out for you jakee so you can move on to posting more insane reasons why you cant see how the attacks were provocated.

-History since 2011 of publishing intentional bigoted drawings and specialized in Islamophobia. Not terrorists which all countries have made fun of, but the Muslim religion as a whole.
-Was fire bombed, and had many ongoing death threats.
-Defied the French governments advice and after appearing on a list of Al Qaeda’s targets, was under government protection
-The editorial director lashed out and stated he was ready to die for the cause, and would rather die standing than live on his knees
-Published a picture of a hapless-looking man, dressed in the style of many Islamic extremists, under the words “still no attacks in France.” The extremist, in a speech bubble, pointed out that he had until the end of January to present his New Year’s wishes.
-After that the foreign minister at the time Laurent Fabius stated “Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?” When they were forced to close French embassies, consulates, cultural centers and schools in about 20 countries.

Does everyone deserve free speech YES. Does anyone deserve to die because of it NO. Is terrorism bad YES. The murders by the terrorists are horrible overreaction, that deserves the harshest punishment YES.

Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get what they were asking for. Sadly YES. Im not saying its good, or its right, but if you cant see the chain of events that led to this your blind. Remove the links of continued bigoted, and hatred comics towards Muslims put out BY Charlie Hebdo, and led by Charb and their deaths would have not happened that day.

I'm glad someone gets it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Boomerdog 0]

I am writing in the broadest sense simply because it's true.

With all due respect, you site other crimes against minorities as some immoral equivalence. The difference is such violent actions in this country constitute a serious crime where the offenders would be both vigorously pursued, arrested and vigorously prosecuted as they should. The actions of terrorists on behalf of replacing one government of their objection for another of their preference whether you or I like it or not is altogether a different set of constructs.

Small minority of Muslims? Please don't be fooled by the numbers. By etimates, there are 1.2 BILLION Muslims worldwide.

Now here are the numbers if a "small percentage" of Muslims are radicalized, hate the West and want to kill all the Infidels AKA you and me and Mr. quade to name a few.

10% radicalized - 120 million
1% radicalized - 12 million
0.1% radicalized - 1.2 million

Small percentage yes. Small numbers...hardly.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Did the people responsible for the continued provocation after credible threats get what they were asking for. Sadly YES.

So why don't you think the victims of ISIS beheading in Syria didn't get what they were asking for? They knew that the extremists didn't want them there, and they know that involvement with westerners makes any Syrian a target for brutality as well - so why don't they bear responsibility for what happened?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

So last night I noticed my wife watching some awards show.
They did a very insulting skit that was a direct insult to Our Supreme Leader.
If we get nuked by North Korea, your mindset would say that it was a justified nuking.

That's wrong.

Funny when Terry was trying to incite the Muslims in the way Charley Hebdo was doing by attacking their religion, this is the response from the top leaders in the US including Obama. They all agreed that simply making a statement and burning the quran could and most likely would lead to violence, but those here cant see how it was possibly Charlie Hebdo's fault. Obama realized it could cause actual violence, and im saying the same thing in a past tense, that they posted those comics, and it DID incite violence which ended up on their doorstep as they were warned by their own government could happen with enough credibility it required police protection.

Quote

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "It's regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida with a church of no more than fifty people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan and get, you know, the world's attention."[38]

The commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus said, "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community." The pastor responded to Petraeus' statement that, "We understand the General's concerns. We are sure that his concerns are legitimate. [Nonetheless] [w]e must send a clear message to the radical element of Islam. We will no longer be controlled and dominated by their fears and threats."[39][40][41]

President Barack Obama was asked on September 9, 2010, on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the Quran burning controversy. He said, "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan. This could increase the recruitment of individuals who would be willing to blow themselves up in American cities or European cities." He said, "I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. We're already seeing protests against Americans just by the mere threat that he's making." "I just hope he understands that what he is proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans, that this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance," Obama said. "He says he's someone who is motivated by his faith ... I hope he listens to those better angels and understands that this is a destructive act that he's engaging in.” Asked if the event could be stopped, Obama replied, "My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning … but that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us."[42]

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[Anvilbrother 0]

Quote

So why don't you think the victims of ISIS beheading in Syria didn't get what they were asking for? They knew that the extremists didn't want them there, and they know that involvement with westerners makes any Syrian a target for brutality as well - so why don't they bear responsibility for what happened?

Because they were not actively perusing any inciteful relationship with their attackers, simply being a journalist.

Its like our drunk guy in a bar example. Hebdo was the drunk asshole yelling insults in the air at a certain race, creed, or religion, and got beat up V.S. the Journalists who were beheaded were simply sitting at the bar quietly and got sucker punched in the back of the head for simply being in the wrong neighborhood.

If you cant see the difference in actively inciting your attacker, and being a victim of an attack simply because you existed in a certain space time location they did not like either your blinded by your views, or your consciously ignoring it to continue to be a troll here and argue with people.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[HighJB 0]

rehmwa

I really hate shock journalism. .

It's clearly not the case. It's a satirical publication, they were not pretending to be journalist (at least for this specific work).

Attached is a one of their front page. Caption : Love is stronger than hate.
It was very popular in the streets of paris yesterday. I think many of the people who were demonstrating were just sayin' that there is a place in France for for their work.

ça passe ou ça frotte