|
|
On January 17 2015 09:34 rararock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 08:23 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 06:11 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:41 jinorazi wrote:
i think many people have a blanket generalization on freedom of speech. for the same reason you dont go up to a random black person and call them t he N word, since its quiet predictable of the outcome, you shouldnt do the same to muslim since the predictable outcome is different from those of other religions. extremism aside, many of the islamic countries are heavily based on their belief, its part of the government and country and its inevitable to get strong reactions to offending content. to wave off this reaction with "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is very arrogant and naive.
criticism of islam needs to come from muslims, not "western christians" since whatever good message it might have gets drowned and lost in the "west is criticizing us" attitude. In essense your interpretation of freedom of speech is that the line is drawn when the aggrieved party responds with violence. Like the massacre directed at Charlie Hebdo. That is so very very wrong. The point of freedom of speech is that it is to be not under duress of those who will direct violence towards it. Or to turn it the other way, in those Islamic countries you speak of, where blasphemy is punishable by death, well, they actually aren't very nice places to live at all. Take Pakistan for instance. Mobs literally run around burning and stoning and killing people for accused blasphemy, (for things like throwing away a business card with the name mohammed for instance or being not muslim), whilst the police and the courts stand by. Polititians who stand by those accused of blasphemy or try to repel the laws are killed either by assasination or killed by their own bodyguards. This may sound like some sort of gross exaggeration but it is the truth. Now go read what you just wrote and be glad that you have the freedom of speech to write what you just did without being threatened of torture and death. west went through the same phase, i expect the middle east to go through the same. changes require ugly events. pointing out the flaws like punishments of blasphemy is just pointing out the obvious to me, not something i can be for or against, its just the way it is with society east or west all depending on progress of said society. what the extremists did is very wrong, what charlie hebdo did had risks from extremists and they knew it. now its spread to people in middle east mass protesting against what charlie hebdo did and is doing, western view says its freedom of speech and it shouldnt be stopped and thats where i said this view comes from blanket view on freedom of speech. such criticism needs to come within islam, not outside because the meaning gets lost. western view has this high chair view when exact same shit has happened to them. in west, we're lucky enough to live in a time of post change while people born in middle east lives in pre change and we should treat it as such. i'm pointing out people, society, nations need to be talked with in accordance to their way of life, forcing your own view based on your own culture does not apply everywhere else. such differences and predictable outcome should always be considered yet, like i said, many likes to paint everything with the same brush then act surprised with the predictable outcome. I think you have confused freedom of speech with Charlie Hebdo. Charlie hebdo does not represent freedom of speech, it is a magazine that can exist becuase of that precious right. Charlie hebdo audience isn't people in the middle east, unless the people of the middle east speak French and as far as I am aware they don't even sell in the middle east. They aren't forcing their views on anybody, they are selling a magazine. No one has to read Charlie Hebdo. No one has to sit down and read it, no one has to pay and buy it and certainly no one is arrested and killed becuase they didn't read it. You call it a high chair. Let me tell you, not all cultures are equal. Some beliefs, some institutions, some cultures are just superior to others. You say that the west are forcing their own views. You act as if this was somehow a recent development as opposed to cultures which have changed over hundreds of years. The west didn't suddenly appear and enforce their values, forcing their beliefs into the middle east, from what I can see, the power structure of the middle east are resistant to "western" notions of liberty and freedom of speech. Of course saying that there are plenty in those countries who do beleive in those notions, hence the Arab spring and revolutions and civil wars and various other changes. In fact it is almost rascist to characterise the middle east as if somehow they will be a backward peoples, forever intolerant, and not be exposed to ideas different from their own. my words were towards people defending charlie hedbo on behalf of free speech (charlie hebdo definitely represents free speech) and those interlorent of the middle east, such as thinking they're backwards people and i'm saying its just the nature of society and its not 100% correct to call them backwards. i think we're on the same page here as i dont disagree many of what you said but you seem to be misinterpreting what i said though caused by my lack of language skill. my point was you can't use your cultural standards to get through another culture when their cultural standards are different, then act surprised why it doesnt get through. one culture suprior to another...yeah, look where that got us. A culture that respects the rights of women, that allows freedom of religion, that doesn't execute people for being homosexual is superior to a culture that bans every religion but islam, that executes homosexuals and adulterers, that don't let women vote or drive, that kill people for drawing cartoons.
Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it has gone through many changes from the time where faults you mentioned existed, i'd imagine same can happen with islam. middle east has been in turmoil ever since the lands were taken, split and given with little time to develop. let them gain stability then develop and see where that takes them.
lets not generalize extremists' behavior with everyone, as far as i know most of middle east or muslims do not condone the attack at charlie hebdo. though they dont like what charlie hebdo did, i'm sure many would be against physically attacking them.
|
well, you cant point a county where women and men are %100 equal. reza made a good point, you can't blame a whole group for the actions of some of it's members. if the media spoke about the gun problems in the USA like they did so many other topics about muslims, they would be reporting 24/7 on the Christian violence in the US.
and pope made the WORST speech about this attack. he deserved a punch.
|
On January 17 2015 04:16 crazyweasel wrote:
freedom of speech is meant to allow's every one's political opinion to be heard. its a part of democracy. and it stop when your political views incite to violence or hatred.
if the attacks on charlie hebdo are grave and to condemn. charlie hebdo wasn't really pushing the limits where they should be pushed.
let me explain : freedom of speech is used to denounce the unease in our civilisation. it's basically the legitimacy of the poeple to resist the system, to protest etc. But charlie hebdo was either victim of the mass media influences or blatently a organ of hegemony itself. poking, legit or not at the muslim world isn't nowadays (and since 9/11) something brave or being "against the stream". ever since 9/11 muslims around the world, especially in western countries are being oppressed. not only are they citizen of second class economically because of their migrant status but they are also victim of an ambiant racism.
the unease in our societies is surely not the muslim and their "appearant" unsuited values to our societies,
that said, charlie hebdo was willingly or not participating in some kind of stigmatization of an ethnic/religous group. in our case perpretrating islamophobia.
is that freedom of speech? yes, but is it perfomative? not at all because it is simply weighting on people's sensitivity.
this means that when being a satirist you always have to cope with one sensitivity (and this has been confirmed by many writers/satirist etc) there is always a question of self-censure when it comes to satire.
the irony in all this matter is that french authorities and western authorities in general from now on are arresting people who make "apology of terrorism" on the basis that they do not respect the sensitivity created by this terrorist attack (im thinking of dieudonné who faces up to 7years of prison and 100 000$ fine for a facebook post).
then we can clearly see that its a matter of whose senstivity are we defending or not. its a matter of hegemony. when attacking the sentivity of those who are in power it is called "inciting to violence" and when it's attacking the sensitivity of the oppressed it is called "freedom of speech". we could make a parallel with radical left protests in the western world that are muted by police brutality and anti-protest laws, when in the same western world neo-nazi and facist marches (in some parts of europe) are left untouched by authorities. who calls for hainous political views here?
on my part i am pointing out the ambiguious treatment of this event by the medias and the public opinion. i'm not and i will never try to legitimize what happened at charlie hebdo.(simply protecting myself from mods here - we know some of them are quite something).
then on the topic of terrorism where should satirists aim their freedom of speech? precisly towards the corporation and state interests who financed these terrorist groups in the first place. remember who armed the talibans against the soviet? who armed Al-quaeda? who armed syrian rebels against assad? and so on.... the answer is : the western world, by the intermediate of Saudi and other warlords
so when we want to use our freedom of speech lets aim towards our own societies before we brainlessly offend 1 billions muslims under our right to say what we think.
The thing is we can do this and we do this. The western world allows criticism, like the very criticism you just wrote. No on is going to come to your house and kill you for it. But let's forget the west, make a drawing making fun of Shiva, or Buddah, or the Dhali lama. No one is going to kill you for that either. But draw a cartoon making fun of Muhammad and you could get killed for it. In a western world that is completely unacceptable. Muslims are being oppressed because they are the only major religious group that is committing terrorism. Muslims shouldn't be treated with kid gloves where someone they are off limits to being made fun of. Every religion is made fun of. I have seen tons of pictures and shows making fun of Jesus and no one flips out and kills people. The worst that happens is some people on fox news bitch about it.
|
On January 17 2015 09:46 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 09:34 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 08:23 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 06:11 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:41 jinorazi wrote:
i think many people have a blanket generalization on freedom of speech. for the same reason you dont go up to a random black person and call them t he N word, since its quiet predictable of the outcome, you shouldnt do the same to muslim since the predictable outcome is different from those of other religions. extremism aside, many of the islamic countries are heavily based on their belief, its part of the government and country and its inevitable to get strong reactions to offending content. to wave off this reaction with "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is very arrogant and naive.
criticism of islam needs to come from muslims, not "western christians" since whatever good message it might have gets drowned and lost in the "west is criticizing us" attitude. In essense your interpretation of freedom of speech is that the line is drawn when the aggrieved party responds with violence. Like the massacre directed at Charlie Hebdo. That is so very very wrong. The point of freedom of speech is that it is to be not under duress of those who will direct violence towards it. Or to turn it the other way, in those Islamic countries you speak of, where blasphemy is punishable by death, well, they actually aren't very nice places to live at all. Take Pakistan for instance. Mobs literally run around burning and stoning and killing people for accused blasphemy, (for things like throwing away a business card with the name mohammed for instance or being not muslim), whilst the police and the courts stand by. Polititians who stand by those accused of blasphemy or try to repel the laws are killed either by assasination or killed by their own bodyguards. This may sound like some sort of gross exaggeration but it is the truth. Now go read what you just wrote and be glad that you have the freedom of speech to write what you just did without being threatened of torture and death. west went through the same phase, i expect the middle east to go through the same. changes require ugly events. pointing out the flaws like punishments of blasphemy is just pointing out the obvious to me, not something i can be for or against, its just the way it is with society east or west all depending on progress of said society. what the extremists did is very wrong, what charlie hebdo did had risks from extremists and they knew it. now its spread to people in middle east mass protesting against what charlie hebdo did and is doing, western view says its freedom of speech and it shouldnt be stopped and thats where i said this view comes from blanket view on freedom of speech. such criticism needs to come within islam, not outside because the meaning gets lost. western view has this high chair view when exact same shit has happened to them. in west, we're lucky enough to live in a time of post change while people born in middle east lives in pre change and we should treat it as such. i'm pointing out people, society, nations need to be talked with in accordance to their way of life, forcing your own view based on your own culture does not apply everywhere else. such differences and predictable outcome should always be considered yet, like i said, many likes to paint everything with the same brush then act surprised with the predictable outcome. I think you have confused freedom of speech with Charlie Hebdo. Charlie hebdo does not represent freedom of speech, it is a magazine that can exist becuase of that precious right. Charlie hebdo audience isn't people in the middle east, unless the people of the middle east speak French and as far as I am aware they don't even sell in the middle east. They aren't forcing their views on anybody, they are selling a magazine. No one has to read Charlie Hebdo. No one has to sit down and read it, no one has to pay and buy it and certainly no one is arrested and killed becuase they didn't read it. You call it a high chair. Let me tell you, not all cultures are equal. Some beliefs, some institutions, some cultures are just superior to others. You say that the west are forcing their own views. You act as if this was somehow a recent development as opposed to cultures which have changed over hundreds of years. The west didn't suddenly appear and enforce their values, forcing their beliefs into the middle east, from what I can see, the power structure of the middle east are resistant to "western" notions of liberty and freedom of speech. Of course saying that there are plenty in those countries who do beleive in those notions, hence the Arab spring and revolutions and civil wars and various other changes. In fact it is almost rascist to characterise the middle east as if somehow they will be a backward peoples, forever intolerant, and not be exposed to ideas different from their own. my words were towards people defending charlie hedbo on behalf of free speech (charlie hebdo definitely represents free speech) and those interlorent of the middle east, such as thinking they're backwards people and i'm saying its just the nature of society and its not 100% correct to call them backwards. i think we're on the same page here as i dont disagree many of what you said but you seem to be misinterpreting what i said though caused by my lack of language skill. my point was you can't use your cultural standards to get through another culture when their cultural standards are different, then act surprised why it doesnt get through. one culture suprior to another...yeah, look where that got us. A culture that respects the rights of women, that allows freedom of religion, that doesn't execute people for being homosexual is superior to a culture that bans every religion but islam, that executes homosexuals and adulterers, that don't let women vote or drive, that kill people for drawing cartoons. Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it has gone through many changes from the time where faults you mentioned existed, i'd imagine same can happen with islam. middle east has been in turmoil ever since the lands were taken, split and given with little time to develop. let them gain stability then develop and see where that takes them. lets not generalize extremists' behavior with everyone, like attacking charlie hebdo.
And I condemn Christianity of the middle ages as violent and backwards. But I don't live in the middle ages, I live in the 21st century. The religion that is violent right now is Islam, and it is violent in the 21st century with access to 21st century technology. If Christians start killing people over pictures of Jesus I will be the first in line to criticize them.
You definitely can generalize a country or religion as violent even if most of the people in the county and religion aren't. As an american my country is a lot more violent than most western countries. My neighbor to the south, Mexico, is an extremely violent country as they are in the midst of a huge drug war, and Islam is a violent religion. This despite the fact that most americans aren't violent, most mexicans aren't violent, and most muslims aren't violent.
|
On January 17 2015 08:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 08:26 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 08:09 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 07:28 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:50 kwizach wrote:On January 17 2015 04:50 WhiteDog wrote:On January 17 2015 03:48 kwizach wrote:On January 16 2015 07:05 MrCon wrote:On January 16 2015 05:05 OtherWorld wrote:
[quote]
Drawing the line is the role of the judges and of justice. Charlie Hebdo has been sued many times, and has been sentenced sometimes because the judges estimated that the line had been crossed. (iirc it's something like 9 sentences for almost 50 trials).
And it's not about assuming people are dumb, it's about the simple fact that most people have a tendency to consider true what they hear others saying without taking time to research the actual facts and make their own opinions. Wow, exactly like dieudonné :D But dieudonné is hate for some reason while CH is free speech. That's why the cursor problem is a problem, when people that say the same thing but on one side it's considered "hate" and another "freedom of speech". On January 16 2015 07:52 MrCon wrote:On January 16 2015 07:22 Acertos wrote:
There is no point talking with you, Dieudoné targets Jews as a people while CH targets religions and right wing extremes. Ok so forget dieudonné, most french people are brainwashed by years of media lies about him anyway so you're right talking about him is counter productive. Dieudonné targets everyone by the way, like CH. Let's talk about CH instead, all year long they say arabs are terrorists On January 16 2015 07:30 Ghostcom wrote:On January 16 2015 07:22 Acertos wrote:
There is no point talking with you, Dieudoné targets Jews as a people while CH targets religions and right wing extremes. So targeting one group is off limits, but the other is totally fine because... You said so? A Muslim will tell you that they have no more choice in believing than a Jew has of being jewish (which ironically is tied largely to Judaism). I'm sorry but your distinction doesn't really work. Both of you are completely failing to understand the difference between Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. The difference was made clear by Acertos but I'll explain it again. Dieudonné attacks religious people, namely Jews (for being Jews). He is clearly anti-semitic, has made anti-semitic statements, and has been condemned for them. Charlie Hebdo does not attack or criticize religious people. It does not attack Jews, it does not attack Muslims, it does not attack Christians (and it does not attack Arabs either, contrary to what you said). What Charlie Hebdo does is attack all religious extremists (not religious people in general) and criticize all religions and religious symbols (again, not religious people). Criticizing religions for the systems of beliefs they are, and mocking religious institutions and religious symbols for various reasons (for example for the Pope's stance on condoms), is not the same as attacking the religious people themselves. You're attacking ideas, institutions and figures of authority, NOT religious people as a group. This is an important distinction and it explains why Dieudonné has been condemned for anti-semitism/incitement to racial hatred while Charlie Hebdo has not (its condemnations were usually for having insulted individuals). Charlie Hebdo is an antiracist publication which has never promoted the type of hate-speech that Dieudonné is well-known for. To the contrary, its cartoons ridicule hate speech and they use right-wing imagery to mock it and denounce it those right-wing ideas. On January 16 2015 08:00 WhiteDog wrote:On January 16 2015 07:52 MrCon wrote:
[quote]
Ok so forget dieudonné, most french people are brainwashed by years of media lies about him anyway so you're right talking about him is counter productive. Dieudonné targets everyone by the way, like CH.
Let's talk about CH instead, all year long they say arabs are terrorists and their prophet is too, but when one of their journalist makes a "jew have money" joke article he instantly gets fired because he somehow crossed the line and he's antisemitic. There's double standard. Everybody knows about it. WIth regards to the matter at hand, namely Charlie Hebdo and French law, there is absolutely no double standard, no. If you promote hate speech by targeting groups of people you get condemned. If you criticize religions, you don't. It's the same for everyone. It's untrue. Some of Charlie's caricature were insulting - the coran is "shit" for exemple, or the one where all the black pregnant women saying "Don't touch our allocations !" (it's just racist plain and simple). I'm personally completly OKAY with those, and they didn't create any fuss in the media (aside from some specific extremist group), because, let's say it, spitting on the muslim "community" or the dominated class of our society is less "important" to our elites than any insult toward the jewish community (look at the Sine's affair, the chronique he was fired for was not antisemite at all, but it create a huge fuss in the media). Charlie was more or less equal, but don't tell me there's no double standard in the media. Completely false on both counts. The "Le Coran c'est de la merde, ça n'arrête pas les balles" cover denounced the slaughter of unarmed Muslim partisans of Morsi by the Egyptian military. The point of the drawing is to show that the dead had nothing to protect themselves but the Quran. There is absolutely nothing racist about the cartoon, which precisely condemned the atrocities in Egypt perpetrated by the military. The cover with the black pregnant women saying "Don't touch our allocations!" combines two different news stories of the time: a reduction in allocations in France and the crimes of Boko Haram against women, including stories of kidnapping and of rape. The aim of the cover is to denounce and mock right-wing fantasies about foreigners coming to France to "steal" from the French social system - including the scarecrow often used by the right of foreign mothers coming to France to give birth on French soil. They were therefore ridiculing right-wing fantasies, not endorsing them. Nothing about these drawings was attacking Muslims as religious people - one served to denounce atrocities perpetrated against Muslims, and the other served to denounce right-wing fantasies about immigrants, including Muslims. To think they were "racist" is to utterly misunderstand them. Again, Charlie Hebdo never "spit" on the Muslim community or on any other religious community - it criticized religions, not religious groups of people (except extremists, from every religion). Siné was fired because of putting forward the idea that Jean Sarkozy became a Jew and married a Jewish woman for personal profit. It can very well be argued that what he wrote had antisemitic undertones (i.e. it was aimed at Jews themselves), which is why the decision to fire him was made. Siné was cleared by the courts, but it doesn't change the fact that the reasoning for firing him was that it was felt by those who took the decision that he was aiming at a religious group of people as such, contrary to what the journal does. There is no double standard. I'm amazed. How can you think implying that all black and muslim women makes babies for allocations is not racist, but saying that he converted to judaism in order to marry his jewish wife, who is also the heir of the Darty familly, is antisemite. You can contextualize all you want, there is nothing in the caricature that imply it is a jab at right wing extremism (which is the reason why the caricature created an outrage in the far left), just like saying "the coran is shit", whatever the context, is clearly a global view on islam (just like drawing a bomb in Mohammed's turban is implying islam is terrorist by essence). Again, I find all that completly OK (I'm for a total freedom of press), and I am not at all saying Charlie is biased (Charb was a hero to me), but the public outrage that followed Siné's small text shows a lot on how the media and our society view all these events. I just explained to you why both covers that you mentioned were absolutely not aimed at Muslims. The cover with the Muslim women asking for allocations was, as I just said, to ridicule ring-wing fantasies on the topic, not to actually imply that Muslim women really do make babies for allocations. It almost only created an "outrage" among those who did not understand the cover because they probably don't read the journal. The same goes for the cover with the Muslim with the Quran getting shot, which condemned the Egyptian military for the massacre and not the Muslims who got killed. There is nothing racist about either message - all you need to do is understand how the cartoons work and what they mean. On January 17 2015 06:15 WhiteDog wrote:
Even in Charlie, many people clearly stated that Charlie under Philippe Val was biased (even people who actually work/worked in Charlie : Tignous was one of them, so was Delfeil de Ton or Olivier Cyran) and believed attacking the muslim was non pertinent. Putting that aside, in the media it is pretty obvious that there is a double standard : Eric Zemmour, Houellebecq, Finkelkraut, Fourest or Malka are all always invited and well known for some curious comment. If Houellebecq last book pictured a society with a jewish government, everybody would have instantly called it antisemite. Somehow, implying France is overrun by muslim give you open access to all medias. There is a difference between being too alarmist about extremists and being actually racist against the entire Muslim population. There was no anti-Muslims racism whatsoever at Charlie Hebdo. I despise Zemmour but he's been condemned for hate speech before and the double standard we were talking about was from the legal point-of-view. People get condemned when they preach hate against a religious, "ethnic" group or skin color, not when their target is a religion. Dieudonné could say the same exact thing. What does he mean by Shoananas ? (He argued in court that it just about "hot ananas") By Charlie Coulibaly ? By the first sketch he had that made all this fuss ? If Dieudonné says "I said Charlie Coulibaly" to caricature the islamist extremists" does it work ? On this specific caricature, there are no reference to right wing extremist. At least, it's pretty bad caricature. No, if you take a look at the specific cases where Dieudonné got condemned, he was clearly targeting Jews as religious people. Again, that has never been the case of Charlie Hebdo, for any group of religious people. Honestly, I'm not sure how you're still not understanding the difference between targeting religion/religious institutions/religious symbols and targeting religious people. In the two covers you mentioned, the targets were respectively the (far) right wing trying to demonize the figure of the immigrant in France, and the Egyptian military. Neither targeted Muslims. The fact that you didn't understand the covers does not mean that they were racist. On January 17 2015 08:09 WhiteDog wrote:
The problem is not really that they are condemned, it is that despite the condamnation they are still there in the media giving their point of view on everything - like Fourest who got condemn for diffamation several times. If you agree that there is no double standard from the legal point of view, that's already something. Fourest is an intellectual who's done very valuable work on both the far right and on religious extremists, and I don't see why she should not be invited on these topics. I never said there was any double standard from the legal point of view ! Here is my first sentence : "Charlie was more or less equal, but don't tell me there's no double standard in the media." Actually one of the main problem we have with kids in 93 is that they barely ever know about the legal point of view on those things because the media rarely publicize the result : the time of the media and the time of the justice system are entirely different, and following the first makes you believe the society as a whole is biased.
Your first claim of a "double standard" was in reply to someone mentioning Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. There is no double standard with respect to how the two are treated both legally and in the media, as I explained.
On January 17 2015 08:30 WhiteDog wrote:
Fourest did very valuable work ? LOL Please. She's a liar nothing more. "Working" in social science needs some kind of epistemology and rigor, she have none of those. Most of the book she wrote got condemned for diffamation (on Le Pen and on Ramadan for exemple).
Not "most of the books she wrote", no. She lost in court with respect to the Le Pen book largely for mentioning private details and drawing generalizations to the FN for things which should have been attributed to the Le Pen family members, not for anything inaccurate. I'm not aware of her having lost in court with regards to her book on Tariq Ramadan. Both were serious books, and again she's done valuable work on religious extremists, in particular coming from the Catholic church.
|
On January 17 2015 09:54 rararock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 09:46 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 09:34 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 08:23 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 06:11 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:41 jinorazi wrote:
i think many people have a blanket generalization on freedom of speech. for the same reason you dont go up to a random black person and call them t he N word, since its quiet predictable of the outcome, you shouldnt do the same to muslim since the predictable outcome is different from those of other religions. extremism aside, many of the islamic countries are heavily based on their belief, its part of the government and country and its inevitable to get strong reactions to offending content. to wave off this reaction with "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is very arrogant and naive.
criticism of islam needs to come from muslims, not "western christians" since whatever good message it might have gets drowned and lost in the "west is criticizing us" attitude. In essense your interpretation of freedom of speech is that the line is drawn when the aggrieved party responds with violence. Like the massacre directed at Charlie Hebdo. That is so very very wrong. The point of freedom of speech is that it is to be not under duress of those who will direct violence towards it. Or to turn it the other way, in those Islamic countries you speak of, where blasphemy is punishable by death, well, they actually aren't very nice places to live at all. Take Pakistan for instance. Mobs literally run around burning and stoning and killing people for accused blasphemy, (for things like throwing away a business card with the name mohammed for instance or being not muslim), whilst the police and the courts stand by. Polititians who stand by those accused of blasphemy or try to repel the laws are killed either by assasination or killed by their own bodyguards. This may sound like some sort of gross exaggeration but it is the truth. Now go read what you just wrote and be glad that you have the freedom of speech to write what you just did without being threatened of torture and death. west went through the same phase, i expect the middle east to go through the same. changes require ugly events. pointing out the flaws like punishments of blasphemy is just pointing out the obvious to me, not something i can be for or against, its just the way it is with society east or west all depending on progress of said society. what the extremists did is very wrong, what charlie hebdo did had risks from extremists and they knew it. now its spread to people in middle east mass protesting against what charlie hebdo did and is doing, western view says its freedom of speech and it shouldnt be stopped and thats where i said this view comes from blanket view on freedom of speech. such criticism needs to come within islam, not outside because the meaning gets lost. western view has this high chair view when exact same shit has happened to them. in west, we're lucky enough to live in a time of post change while people born in middle east lives in pre change and we should treat it as such. i'm pointing out people, society, nations need to be talked with in accordance to their way of life, forcing your own view based on your own culture does not apply everywhere else. such differences and predictable outcome should always be considered yet, like i said, many likes to paint everything with the same brush then act surprised with the predictable outcome. I think you have confused freedom of speech with Charlie Hebdo. Charlie hebdo does not represent freedom of speech, it is a magazine that can exist becuase of that precious right. Charlie hebdo audience isn't people in the middle east, unless the people of the middle east speak French and as far as I am aware they don't even sell in the middle east. They aren't forcing their views on anybody, they are selling a magazine. No one has to read Charlie Hebdo. No one has to sit down and read it, no one has to pay and buy it and certainly no one is arrested and killed becuase they didn't read it. You call it a high chair. Let me tell you, not all cultures are equal. Some beliefs, some institutions, some cultures are just superior to others. You say that the west are forcing their own views. You act as if this was somehow a recent development as opposed to cultures which have changed over hundreds of years. The west didn't suddenly appear and enforce their values, forcing their beliefs into the middle east, from what I can see, the power structure of the middle east are resistant to "western" notions of liberty and freedom of speech. Of course saying that there are plenty in those countries who do beleive in those notions, hence the Arab spring and revolutions and civil wars and various other changes. In fact it is almost rascist to characterise the middle east as if somehow they will be a backward peoples, forever intolerant, and not be exposed to ideas different from their own. my words were towards people defending charlie hedbo on behalf of free speech (charlie hebdo definitely represents free speech) and those interlorent of the middle east, such as thinking they're backwards people and i'm saying its just the nature of society and its not 100% correct to call them backwards. i think we're on the same page here as i dont disagree many of what you said but you seem to be misinterpreting what i said though caused by my lack of language skill. my point was you can't use your cultural standards to get through another culture when their cultural standards are different, then act surprised why it doesnt get through. one culture suprior to another...yeah, look where that got us. A culture that respects the rights of women, that allows freedom of religion, that doesn't execute people for being homosexual is superior to a culture that bans every religion but islam, that executes homosexuals and adulterers, that don't let women vote or drive, that kill people for drawing cartoons. Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it has gone through many changes from the time where faults you mentioned existed, i'd imagine same can happen with islam. middle east has been in turmoil ever since the lands were taken, split and given with little time to develop. let them gain stability then develop and see where that takes them. lets not generalize extremists' behavior with everyone, like attacking charlie hebdo. And I condemn Christianity of the middle ages as violent and backwards. But I don't live in the middle ages, I live in the 21st century. The religion that is violent right now is Islam, and it is violent in the 21st century with access to 21st century technology. If Christians start killing people over pictures of Jesus I will be the first in line to criticize them. You definitely can generalize a country or religion as violent even if most of the people in the county and religion aren't. As an american my country is a lot more violent than most western countries. My neighbor to the south, Mexico, is an extremely violent country as they are in the midst of a huge drug war, and Islam is a violent religion. This despite the fact that most americans aren't violent, most mexicans aren't violent, and most muslims aren't violent.
just because its the 21st century, not everyone lives in 21st century when 80% world's resources go to 20% of the earth's population. development of nations and culture is not equal throughout the world and you can't expect people to live up to your standards.
i think its a difference in perspective, you'd rather pick out things here and there you dont like meanwhile i see them as a natural thing in society and pointless to complaint about as they are 1) inevitable and 2) it'll sort itself out soon or later or far far later. what islam is today is a combination of many things in the past and just to label it as "because they're muslim" is short sighted.
|
To expand on that it is a ridiculous standard to have to have > than 50% of a religion's or country's members be violent to consider that religion or country violent. If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions or a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent.
|
On January 17 2015 10:03 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 09:54 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 09:46 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 09:34 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 08:23 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 06:11 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:41 jinorazi wrote:
i think many people have a blanket generalization on freedom of speech. for the same reason you dont go up to a random black person and call them t he N word, since its quiet predictable of the outcome, you shouldnt do the same to muslim since the predictable outcome is different from those of other religions. extremism aside, many of the islamic countries are heavily based on their belief, its part of the government and country and its inevitable to get strong reactions to offending content. to wave off this reaction with "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is very arrogant and naive.
criticism of islam needs to come from muslims, not "western christians" since whatever good message it might have gets drowned and lost in the "west is criticizing us" attitude. In essense your interpretation of freedom of speech is that the line is drawn when the aggrieved party responds with violence. Like the massacre directed at Charlie Hebdo. That is so very very wrong. The point of freedom of speech is that it is to be not under duress of those who will direct violence towards it. Or to turn it the other way, in those Islamic countries you speak of, where blasphemy is punishable by death, well, they actually aren't very nice places to live at all. Take Pakistan for instance. Mobs literally run around burning and stoning and killing people for accused blasphemy, (for things like throwing away a business card with the name mohammed for instance or being not muslim), whilst the police and the courts stand by. Polititians who stand by those accused of blasphemy or try to repel the laws are killed either by assasination or killed by their own bodyguards. This may sound like some sort of gross exaggeration but it is the truth. Now go read what you just wrote and be glad that you have the freedom of speech to write what you just did without being threatened of torture and death. west went through the same phase, i expect the middle east to go through the same. changes require ugly events. pointing out the flaws like punishments of blasphemy is just pointing out the obvious to me, not something i can be for or against, its just the way it is with society east or west all depending on progress of said society. what the extremists did is very wrong, what charlie hebdo did had risks from extremists and they knew it. now its spread to people in middle east mass protesting against what charlie hebdo did and is doing, western view says its freedom of speech and it shouldnt be stopped and thats where i said this view comes from blanket view on freedom of speech. such criticism needs to come within islam, not outside because the meaning gets lost. western view has this high chair view when exact same shit has happened to them. in west, we're lucky enough to live in a time of post change while people born in middle east lives in pre change and we should treat it as such. i'm pointing out people, society, nations need to be talked with in accordance to their way of life, forcing your own view based on your own culture does not apply everywhere else. such differences and predictable outcome should always be considered yet, like i said, many likes to paint everything with the same brush then act surprised with the predictable outcome. I think you have confused freedom of speech with Charlie Hebdo. Charlie hebdo does not represent freedom of speech, it is a magazine that can exist becuase of that precious right. Charlie hebdo audience isn't people in the middle east, unless the people of the middle east speak French and as far as I am aware they don't even sell in the middle east. They aren't forcing their views on anybody, they are selling a magazine. No one has to read Charlie Hebdo. No one has to sit down and read it, no one has to pay and buy it and certainly no one is arrested and killed becuase they didn't read it. You call it a high chair. Let me tell you, not all cultures are equal. Some beliefs, some institutions, some cultures are just superior to others. You say that the west are forcing their own views. You act as if this was somehow a recent development as opposed to cultures which have changed over hundreds of years. The west didn't suddenly appear and enforce their values, forcing their beliefs into the middle east, from what I can see, the power structure of the middle east are resistant to "western" notions of liberty and freedom of speech. Of course saying that there are plenty in those countries who do beleive in those notions, hence the Arab spring and revolutions and civil wars and various other changes. In fact it is almost rascist to characterise the middle east as if somehow they will be a backward peoples, forever intolerant, and not be exposed to ideas different from their own. my words were towards people defending charlie hedbo on behalf of free speech (charlie hebdo definitely represents free speech) and those interlorent of the middle east, such as thinking they're backwards people and i'm saying its just the nature of society and its not 100% correct to call them backwards. i think we're on the same page here as i dont disagree many of what you said but you seem to be misinterpreting what i said though caused by my lack of language skill. my point was you can't use your cultural standards to get through another culture when their cultural standards are different, then act surprised why it doesnt get through. one culture suprior to another...yeah, look where that got us. A culture that respects the rights of women, that allows freedom of religion, that doesn't execute people for being homosexual is superior to a culture that bans every religion but islam, that executes homosexuals and adulterers, that don't let women vote or drive, that kill people for drawing cartoons. Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it has gone through many changes from the time where faults you mentioned existed, i'd imagine same can happen with islam. middle east has been in turmoil ever since the lands were taken, split and given with little time to develop. let them gain stability then develop and see where that takes them. lets not generalize extremists' behavior with everyone, like attacking charlie hebdo. And I condemn Christianity of the middle ages as violent and backwards. But I don't live in the middle ages, I live in the 21st century. The religion that is violent right now is Islam, and it is violent in the 21st century with access to 21st century technology. If Christians start killing people over pictures of Jesus I will be the first in line to criticize them. You definitely can generalize a country or religion as violent even if most of the people in the county and religion aren't. As an american my country is a lot more violent than most western countries. My neighbor to the south, Mexico, is an extremely violent country as they are in the midst of a huge drug war, and Islam is a violent religion. This despite the fact that most americans aren't violent, most mexicans aren't violent, and most muslims aren't violent. just because its the 21st century, not everyone lives in 21st century when 80% world's resources go to 20% of the earth's population. development of nations and culture is not equal throughout the world and you can't expect people to live up to your standards. i think its a difference in perspective, you'd rather pick out things here and there you dont like meanwhile i see them as a natural thing in society and pointless to complaint about as they are 1) inevitable and 2) it'll sort itself out soon or later or far far later.
The muslim word is relatively wealthy, most of the middle eastern muslim countries have a ton of oil money. It isn't poverty that is fueling the terrorists attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were not poor, they were rich or middle class. If poverty were the driving factor, then poor christians, hindus, and buddhists would be committing terrorist attacks on roughly the same level as muslims but they aren't.
|
On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote:
To expand on that it is a ridiculous standard to have to have > than 50% of a religion's or country's members be violent to consider that religion or country violent. If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions or a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent.
If only we had some type of words that allowed us to target our criticism specifically at the people who are violent within the religion...
You mentioned violence in America earlier. I've followed some american gun debates. Gun owners get defensive when you associate them with gun violence, on the basis that just owning a gun isn't a problem, it's when you're being irresponsible with it that it becomes a problem. Another way to say this is, don't generalize gun deaths to all gun owners, we aren't all like that. And that's just gun owners... Imagine the whole country being accused, or consistently having to apologize for its gun-related deaths... That's absurd.
|
On January 17 2015 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote:
To expand on that it is a ridiculous standard to have to have > than 50% of a religion's or country's members be violent to consider that religion or country violent. If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions or a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent. If only we had some type of words that allowed us to target our criticism specifically at the people who are violent within the religion... You mentioned violence in America earlier. I've followed some american gun debates. Gun owners get defensive when you associate them with gun violence, on the basis that just owning a gun isn't a problem, it's when you're being irresponsible with it that it becomes a problem. Another way to say this is, don't generalize gun deaths to all gun owners, we aren't all like that. And that's just gun owners... Imagine the whole country being accused, or consistently having to apologize for its gun-related deaths... That's absurd.
They might get defensive, but the fact is that gun ownership is associated with much higher murder rates, suicide rates, and accidental killings than not having a gun. I don't hold gun owners personally responsible for every gun death, but by fighting gun control they insure that death rates in the US are a lot higher than other western democracies. Same with religion, most muslims are peaceful but an extremely dangerous minority are not. Instead of saying most muslims are peaceful, why not try to find out why they are the only religion that seems to have a problem with terrorism? If you have radical immams preaching death to non believers, some young men and women are going to carry it out. Same thing when you had the pope calling for a violent crusade 1000 years ago, people followed and listened.
If a certain belief system or country is associated with a higher rate of violence, the rational thing to do is to find out why and fix it. Not to point out that only a minority of that believe system or that country commit violence.
|
On January 17 2015 10:23 rararock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote:
To expand on that it is a ridiculous standard to have to have > than 50% of a religion's or country's members be violent to consider that religion or country violent. If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions or a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent. If only we had some type of words that allowed us to target our criticism specifically at the people who are violent within the religion... You mentioned violence in America earlier. I've followed some american gun debates. Gun owners get defensive when you associate them with gun violence, on the basis that just owning a gun isn't a problem, it's when you're being irresponsible with it that it becomes a problem. Another way to say this is, don't generalize gun deaths to all gun owners, we aren't all like that. And that's just gun owners... Imagine the whole country being accused, or consistently having to apologize for its gun-related deaths... That's absurd. They might get defensive, but the fact is that gun ownership is associated with much higher murder rates, suicide rates, and accidental killings than not having a gun. I don't hold gun owners personally responsible for every gun death, but by fighting gun control they insure that death rates in the US are a lot higher than other western democracies. Same with religion, most muslims are peaceful but an extremely dangerous minority are not. Instead of saying most muslims are peaceful, why not try to find out why they are the only religion that seems to have a problem with terrorism? If you have radical immams preaching death to non believers, some young men and women are going to carry it out. Same thing when you had the pope calling for a violent crusade 1000 years ago, people followed and listened. If a certain belief system or country is associated with a higher rate of violence, the rational thing to do is to find out why and fix it. Not to point out that only a minority of that believe system or that country commit violence.
The basic difference is that when you say "the violence in America", nobody thinks that America is the problem. Everyone understands that we're talking about something very specific within the context of America. When you're talking about "the violence in islam", you suddenly want to have a discussion about all of Islam, about the whole ideology. It's the difference between America has a problem and America is a problem.
Now does Islam have a problem, with its extremism? Sure, it does. There is political and geographical context to the violence, it's not just plain ideological, but religion is certainly part of the mix that creates it. Like you said, there are radical imams spreading this. I don't see a problem with that criticism. But that criticism doesn't equate saying all of Islam is a problem, which is the conclusion that you're going for.
And for some reason, there is this vision that what I'm saying here is a PC thing to say instead of an accurate thing to say. Well it is accurate.
|
On January 17 2015 10:09 rararock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:03 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 09:54 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 09:46 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 09:34 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 08:23 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 06:11 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 05:41 jinorazi wrote:
i think many people have a blanket generalization on freedom of speech. for the same reason you dont go up to a random black person and call them t he N word, since its quiet predictable of the outcome, you shouldnt do the same to muslim since the predictable outcome is different from those of other religions. extremism aside, many of the islamic countries are heavily based on their belief, its part of the government and country and its inevitable to get strong reactions to offending content. to wave off this reaction with "freedom of speech is freedom of speech" is very arrogant and naive.
criticism of islam needs to come from muslims, not "western christians" since whatever good message it might have gets drowned and lost in the "west is criticizing us" attitude. In essense your interpretation of freedom of speech is that the line is drawn when the aggrieved party responds with violence. Like the massacre directed at Charlie Hebdo. That is so very very wrong. The point of freedom of speech is that it is to be not under duress of those who will direct violence towards it. Or to turn it the other way, in those Islamic countries you speak of, where blasphemy is punishable by death, well, they actually aren't very nice places to live at all. Take Pakistan for instance. Mobs literally run around burning and stoning and killing people for accused blasphemy, (for things like throwing away a business card with the name mohammed for instance or being not muslim), whilst the police and the courts stand by. Polititians who stand by those accused of blasphemy or try to repel the laws are killed either by assasination or killed by their own bodyguards. This may sound like some sort of gross exaggeration but it is the truth. Now go read what you just wrote and be glad that you have the freedom of speech to write what you just did without being threatened of torture and death. west went through the same phase, i expect the middle east to go through the same. changes require ugly events. pointing out the flaws like punishments of blasphemy is just pointing out the obvious to me, not something i can be for or against, its just the way it is with society east or west all depending on progress of said society. what the extremists did is very wrong, what charlie hebdo did had risks from extremists and they knew it. now its spread to people in middle east mass protesting against what charlie hebdo did and is doing, western view says its freedom of speech and it shouldnt be stopped and thats where i said this view comes from blanket view on freedom of speech. such criticism needs to come within islam, not outside because the meaning gets lost. western view has this high chair view when exact same shit has happened to them. in west, we're lucky enough to live in a time of post change while people born in middle east lives in pre change and we should treat it as such. i'm pointing out people, society, nations need to be talked with in accordance to their way of life, forcing your own view based on your own culture does not apply everywhere else. such differences and predictable outcome should always be considered yet, like i said, many likes to paint everything with the same brush then act surprised with the predictable outcome. I think you have confused freedom of speech with Charlie Hebdo. Charlie hebdo does not represent freedom of speech, it is a magazine that can exist becuase of that precious right. Charlie hebdo audience isn't people in the middle east, unless the people of the middle east speak French and as far as I am aware they don't even sell in the middle east. They aren't forcing their views on anybody, they are selling a magazine. No one has to read Charlie Hebdo. No one has to sit down and read it, no one has to pay and buy it and certainly no one is arrested and killed becuase they didn't read it. You call it a high chair. Let me tell you, not all cultures are equal. Some beliefs, some institutions, some cultures are just superior to others. You say that the west are forcing their own views. You act as if this was somehow a recent development as opposed to cultures which have changed over hundreds of years. The west didn't suddenly appear and enforce their values, forcing their beliefs into the middle east, from what I can see, the power structure of the middle east are resistant to "western" notions of liberty and freedom of speech. Of course saying that there are plenty in those countries who do beleive in those notions, hence the Arab spring and revolutions and civil wars and various other changes. In fact it is almost rascist to characterise the middle east as if somehow they will be a backward peoples, forever intolerant, and not be exposed to ideas different from their own. my words were towards people defending charlie hedbo on behalf of free speech (charlie hebdo definitely represents free speech) and those interlorent of the middle east, such as thinking they're backwards people and i'm saying its just the nature of society and its not 100% correct to call them backwards. i think we're on the same page here as i dont disagree many of what you said but you seem to be misinterpreting what i said though caused by my lack of language skill. my point was you can't use your cultural standards to get through another culture when their cultural standards are different, then act surprised why it doesnt get through. one culture suprior to another...yeah, look where that got us. A culture that respects the rights of women, that allows freedom of religion, that doesn't execute people for being homosexual is superior to a culture that bans every religion but islam, that executes homosexuals and adulterers, that don't let women vote or drive, that kill people for drawing cartoons. Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it has gone through many changes from the time where faults you mentioned existed, i'd imagine same can happen with islam. middle east has been in turmoil ever since the lands were taken, split and given with little time to develop. let them gain stability then develop and see where that takes them. lets not generalize extremists' behavior with everyone, like attacking charlie hebdo. And I condemn Christianity of the middle ages as violent and backwards. But I don't live in the middle ages, I live in the 21st century. The religion that is violent right now is Islam, and it is violent in the 21st century with access to 21st century technology. If Christians start killing people over pictures of Jesus I will be the first in line to criticize them. You definitely can generalize a country or religion as violent even if most of the people in the county and religion aren't. As an american my country is a lot more violent than most western countries. My neighbor to the south, Mexico, is an extremely violent country as they are in the midst of a huge drug war, and Islam is a violent religion. This despite the fact that most americans aren't violent, most mexicans aren't violent, and most muslims aren't violent. just because its the 21st century, not everyone lives in 21st century when 80% world's resources go to 20% of the earth's population. development of nations and culture is not equal throughout the world and you can't expect people to live up to your standards. i think its a difference in perspective, you'd rather pick out things here and there you dont like meanwhile i see them as a natural thing in society and pointless to complaint about as they are 1) inevitable and 2) it'll sort itself out soon or later or far far later. The muslim word is relatively wealthy, most of the middle eastern muslim countries have a ton of oil money. It isn't poverty that is fueling the terrorists attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were not poor, they were rich or middle class. If poverty were the driving factor, then poor christians, hindus, and buddhists would be committing terrorist attacks on roughly the same level as muslims but they aren't.
none of them sacrificed himself because of how they were living but because of their nation or religion or whatever their reason is, but i'm sure its not for themselves. poverty is a factor and as far as i know poor of any religion or nation has disgruntled behavior towards something. and as i've said its a cultural thing that drives them, religion is just a tool in that culture. koreans have terrorized, not to a organized level of terrorists but as individuals towards japanese embassies over the usual korea-japan issues. i'm sure something similar happened somewhere not associated with religion at all and never gets the spot light like islam related events.
On January 17 2015 10:23 rararock wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote:
To expand on that it is a ridiculous standard to have to have > than 50% of a religion's or country's members be violent to consider that religion or country violent. If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions or a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent. If only we had some type of words that allowed us to target our criticism specifically at the people who are violent within the religion... You mentioned violence in America earlier. I've followed some american gun debates. Gun owners get defensive when you associate them with gun violence, on the basis that just owning a gun isn't a problem, it's when you're being irresponsible with it that it becomes a problem. Another way to say this is, don't generalize gun deaths to all gun owners, we aren't all like that. And that's just gun owners... Imagine the whole country being accused, or consistently having to apologize for its gun-related deaths... That's absurd. They might get defensive, but the fact is that gun ownership is associated with much higher murder rates, suicide rates, and accidental killings than not having a gun. I don't hold gun owners personally responsible for every gun death, but by fighting gun control they insure that death rates in the US are a lot higher than other western democracies. Same with religion, most muslims are peaceful but an extremely dangerous minority are not. Instead of saying most muslims are peaceful, why not try to find out why they are the only religion that seems to have a problem with terrorism? If you have radical immams preaching death to non believers, some young men and women are going to carry it out. Same thing when you had the pope calling for a violent crusade 1000 years ago, people followed and listened. If a certain belief system or country is associated with a higher rate of violence, the rational thing to do is to find out why and fix it. Not to point out that only a minority of that believe system or that country commit violence.
and my and many people's conclusion is that islam is not the reason why they resort to violence, rather they just happen to be associated with islam as their belief. its other factors that drives them and islam is just a tool. my personal opinion is the nature of tribal culture thats the main issue and how do you get away from that? isn't it development, prosperity,
"enlightenment"?
its no different than associating black people with violence because they're black (in usa), not because of the more obvious reason that many of them live in poverty and the way they're brought up in that environment makes them who they are, which unfortunately cycles over and over with fewer people than needed trying to break that cycle.
|
On January 17 2015 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:
The only reason why Charlie Hebdo comics are not considered racist is because you can take them as caricatures of how right-wingers see minorities. (the "nigerian welfare queen" cartoon for example) If you'd just take the cartoon itself without the context that they're actually a left wing magazine which strongly condemns racism they'd be clearly out of line.
Also again this distinction between attacking religions and attacking people is ridiculous. Christians aspire to be like Christ, for them he is the perfect Human being. Same can be said for Muslims and the prophet. You can not attack central figures or parts of a religion without attacking their believers.
Okay, so I kinda get where you're coming from, but don't you think that criticizing religious ideas has to be allowable in a free society? I mean, yes, I get that "Islam is stupid" isn't terribly helpful speech, but saying "Mohammad committed child molestation" or "Mormonism has some objectionable theology with respect to race" is a kind of attack, but is a useful one for discussing the content of religions. As a Christian, I'd be very sorry if we made it harder for people to question and discuss Christianity. If people were banned from saying "Mary Magdalene was a whore and Jesus had threesomes with her and Pontius Pilate," there would be no chance for Christians to explain the actual story of our faith.
I have to say, idealistic Christian that I am, I do really believe in free discourse about religion, and that we all chose our own faith and should have the right to discuss, proselytize, criticize, and even blaspheme in search of what the actual answers are, and I fear any government regulation that seeks to limit that.
Where I draw the distinction is the wholesale cultural bias against "Muslim culture" that exists in much of the West. That's not a theological disputation. More often, it's straight-up racism.
|
Obviously criticizing religion should be allowed. I also think this is more of a moral question than a legal one. As Christians it's pretty clear that we're supposed to not spread hate. So I don't think it's a great idea to create caricatures just to divide people and drive people apart, and if it crosses a certain line I think people should also have the option to fight these things legally(This is obviously also my perspective as a German, as people here have their "human dignity" constitutionally protected)
On the other hand it's obviously important that religious people have enough self-confidence and self irony to not get angry about every single provocation, and it's certainly true that some religious groups overall have thinner skin than others.
|
On January 17 2015 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously criticizing religion should be allowed. I also think this is more of a moral question than a legal one. As Christians it's pretty clear that we're supposed to not spread hate. So I don't think it's a great idea to create caricatures just to divide people and drive people apart, and if it crosses a certain line I think people should also have the option to fight these things legally(This is obviously also my perspective as a German, as people here have their "human dignity" constitutionally protected)
On the other hand it's obviously important that religious people have enough self-confidence and self irony to not get angry about every single provocation, and it's certainly true that some religious groups overall have thinner skin than others.
Human dignity should be limited to things that you are born with. Religion is no such thing. All religions are dangerous tools of hatred and division and thus need to be combatted. It is moral imperative that religions are ridiculed. Once we start respecting religious feelings we might as well start respecting nazis and racists. They are also people whose feelings need to be protected according to your argument. Or are we going to cherrypick which evil ideologies are to be protected and which are not to be protected ?
Anyway Germany has nothing to be proud of. Your blasphemy law is ridiculous, even though not terribly big deal.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 17 2015 11:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously criticizing religion should be allowed. I also think this is more of a moral question than a legal one. As Christians it's pretty clear that we're supposed to not spread hate. So I don't think it's a great idea to create caricatures just to divide people and drive people apart, and if it crosses a certain line I think people should also have the option to fight these things legally(This is obviously also my perspective as a German, as people here have their "human dignity" constitutionally protected)
On the other hand it's obviously important that religious people have enough self-confidence and self irony to not get angry about every single provocation, and it's certainly true that some religious groups overall have thinner skin than others. Human dignity should be limited to things that you are born with. Religion is no such thing. All religions are dangerous tools of hatred and division and thus need to be combatted. It is moral imperative that religions are ridiculed. Once we start respecting religious feelings we might as well start respecting nazis and racists. They are also people whose feelings need to be protected according to your argument. Or are we going to cherrypick which evil ideologies are to be protected and which are not to be protected ? Anyway Germany has nothing to be proud of. Your blasphemy law is ridiculous, even though not terribly big deal.
just because you feel that way doesn't mean its the right way and inefficient way to handle the situation. religion is a huge part of many people's lives and just to brush it off as some insignificant and useless idea is a slap in the face to shit load of people. its better to understand what religion is, help people understand what religion is and allow them to make up their mind themselves to improve their belief or to stray away from it. saying religion is ridiculous when its been part of human civilization perhaps longer than fire, is ridiculous. it causes nothing but more friction. religion can help or destroy like many things, taking religion out of the equation is not going to change anything.
i personally have seen more good than bad and if it helps a person make them better, i'm all for it. but like anything, people can take advantage of it and people should be made aware of it.
|
On January 17 2015 10:43 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:09 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 10:03 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 09:54 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 09:46 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 09:34 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 08:23 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 08:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On January 17 2015 06:11 jinorazi wrote:On January 17 2015 05:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
[quote]
In essense your interpretation of freedom of speech is that the line is drawn when the aggrieved party responds with violence. Like the massacre directed at Charlie Hebdo. That is so very very wrong. The point of freedom of speech is that it is to be not under duress of those who will direct violence towards it.
Or to turn it the other way, in those Islamic countries you speak of, where blasphemy is punishable by death, well, they actually aren't very nice places to live at all. Take Pakistan for instance. Mobs literally run around burning and stoning and killing people for accused blasphemy, (for things like throwing away a business card with the name mohammed for instance or being not muslim), whilst the police and the courts stand by.
Polititians who stand by those accused of blasphemy or try to repel the laws are killed either by assasination or killed by their own bodyguards. This may sound like some sort of gross exaggeration but it is the truth. Now go read what you just wrote and be glad that you have the freedom of speech to write what you just did without being threatened of torture and death. west went through the same phase, i expect the middle east to go through the same. changes require ugly events. pointing out the flaws like punishments of blasphemy is just pointing out the obvious to me, not something i can be for or against, its just the way it is with society east or west all depending on progress of said society. what the extremists did is very wrong, what charlie hebdo did had risks from extremists and they knew it. now its spread to people in middle east mass protesting against what charlie hebdo did and is doing, western view says its freedom of speech and it shouldnt be stopped and thats where i said this view comes from blanket view on freedom of speech. such criticism needs to come within islam, not outside because the meaning gets lost. western view has this high chair view when exact same shit has happened to them. in west, we're lucky enough to live in a time of post change while people born in middle east lives in pre change and we should treat it as such. i'm pointing out people, society, nations need to be talked with in accordance to their way of life, forcing your own view based on your own culture does not apply everywhere else. such differences and predictable outcome should always be considered yet, like i said, many likes to paint everything with the same brush then act surprised with the predictable outcome. I think you have confused freedom of speech with Charlie Hebdo. Charlie hebdo does not represent freedom of speech, it is a magazine that can exist becuase of that precious right. Charlie hebdo audience isn't people in the middle east, unless the people of the middle east speak French and as far as I am aware they don't even sell in the middle east. They aren't forcing their views on anybody, they are selling a magazine. No one has to read Charlie Hebdo. No one has to sit down and read it, no one has to pay and buy it and certainly no one is arrested and killed becuase they didn't read it. You call it a high chair. Let me tell you, not all cultures are equal. Some beliefs, some institutions, some cultures are just superior to others. You say that the west are forcing their own views. You act as if this was somehow a recent development as opposed to cultures which have changed over hundreds of years. The west didn't suddenly appear and enforce their values, forcing their beliefs into the middle east, from what I can see, the power structure of the middle east are resistant to "western" notions of liberty and freedom of speech. Of course saying that there are plenty in those countries who do beleive in those notions, hence the Arab spring and revolutions and civil wars and various other changes. In fact it is almost rascist to characterise the middle east as if somehow they will be a backward peoples, forever intolerant, and not be exposed to ideas different from their own. my words were towards people defending charlie hedbo on behalf of free speech (charlie hebdo definitely represents free speech) and those interlorent of the middle east, such as thinking they're backwards people and i'm saying its just the nature of society and its not 100% correct to call them backwards. i think we're on the same page here as i dont disagree many of what you said but you seem to be misinterpreting what i said though caused by my lack of language skill. my point was you can't use your cultural standards to get through another culture when their cultural standards are different, then act surprised why it doesnt get through. one culture suprior to another...yeah, look where that got us. A culture that respects the rights of women, that allows freedom of religion, that doesn't execute people for being homosexual is superior to a culture that bans every religion but islam, that executes homosexuals and adulterers, that don't let women vote or drive, that kill people for drawing cartoons. Christianity has existed for thousands of years and it has gone through many changes from the time where faults you mentioned existed, i'd imagine same can happen with islam. middle east has been in turmoil ever since the lands were taken, split and given with little time to develop. let them gain stability then develop and see where that takes them. lets not generalize extremists' behavior with everyone, like attacking charlie hebdo. And I condemn Christianity of the middle ages as violent and backwards. But I don't live in the middle ages, I live in the 21st century. The religion that is violent right now is Islam, and it is violent in the 21st century with access to 21st century technology. If Christians start killing people over pictures of Jesus I will be the first in line to criticize them. You definitely can generalize a country or religion as violent even if most of the people in the county and religion aren't. As an american my country is a lot more violent than most western countries. My neighbor to the south, Mexico, is an extremely violent country as they are in the midst of a huge drug war, and Islam is a violent religion. This despite the fact that most americans aren't violent, most mexicans aren't violent, and most muslims aren't violent. just because its the 21st century, not everyone lives in 21st century when 80% world's resources go to 20% of the earth's population. development of nations and culture is not equal throughout the world and you can't expect people to live up to your standards. i think its a difference in perspective, you'd rather pick out things here and there you dont like meanwhile i see them as a natural thing in society and pointless to complaint about as they are 1) inevitable and 2) it'll sort itself out soon or later or far far later. The muslim word is relatively wealthy, most of the middle eastern muslim countries have a ton of oil money. It isn't poverty that is fueling the terrorists attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were not poor, they were rich or middle class. If poverty were the driving factor, then poor christians, hindus, and buddhists would be committing terrorist attacks on roughly the same level as muslims but they aren't. none of them sacrificed himself because of how they were living but because of their nation or religion or whatever their reason is, but i'm sure its not for themselves. poverty is a factor and as far as i know poor of any religion or nation has disgruntled behavior towards something. and as i've said its a cultural thing that drives them, religion is just a tool in that culture. koreans have terrorized, not to a organized level of terrorists but as individuals towards japanese embassies over the usual korea-japan issues. i'm sure something similar happened somewhere not associated with religion at all and never gets the spot light like islam related events. Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:23 rararock wrote:On January 17 2015 10:11 Nebuchad wrote:On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote:
To expand on that it is a ridiculous standard to have to have > than 50% of a religion's or country's members be violent to consider that religion or country violent. If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions or a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent. If only we had some type of words that allowed us to target our criticism specifically at the people who are violent within the religion... You mentioned violence in America earlier. I've followed some american gun debates. Gun owners get defensive when you associate them with gun violence, on the basis that just owning a gun isn't a problem, it's when you're being irresponsible with it that it becomes a problem. Another way to say this is, don't generalize gun deaths to all gun owners, we aren't all like that. And that's just gun owners... Imagine the whole country being accused, or consistently having to apologize for its gun-related deaths... That's absurd. They might get defensive, but the fact is that gun ownership is associated with much higher murder rates, suicide rates, and accidental killings than not having a gun. I don't hold gun owners personally responsible for every gun death, but by fighting gun control they insure that death rates in the US are a lot higher than other western democracies. Same with religion, most muslims are peaceful but an extremely dangerous minority are not. Instead of saying most muslims are peaceful, why not try to find out why they are the only religion that seems to have a problem with terrorism? If you have radical immams preaching death to non believers, some young men and women are going to carry it out. Same thing when you had the pope calling for a violent crusade 1000 years ago, people followed and listened. If a certain belief system or country is associated with a higher rate of violence, the rational thing to do is to find out why and fix it. Not to point out that only a minority of that believe system or that country commit violence. and my and many people's conclusion is that islam is not the reason why they resort to violence, rather they just happen to be associated with islam as their belief. its other factors that drives them and islam is just a tool. my personal opinion is the nature of tribal culture thats the main issue and how do you get away from that? isn't it development, prosperity, "enlightenment"? its no different than associating black people with violence because they're black (in usa), not because of the more obvious reason that many of them live in poverty and the way they're brought up in that environment makes them who they are, which unfortunately cycles over and over with fewer people than needed trying to break that cycle.
Black people are born black. Muslims are not a race. There is nothing other than socioeconomical factors that can be blamed for black issues in US. Muslims have this book that prescribes pretty atrocious things. Saying that islam is not a reason that they resort to violence is ridiculous when they can exactly quote you from their holy books how what they are doing is sanctioned by their religion. The fact that other muslims are not all violent is pitiful counter-argument as those other muslims just choose to ignore part of their holy book, same as most Christians do. Major religions have so many strands that denying one of those strands is not actually part of the religion is ridiculous PC nonsense. You are also severely underestimating support for their actions in many muslim states. Just to note I agree that part of their motivation has nothing to do with religion, but stating that none of their actions can be tied to religion is blatantly false. Btw, my opinion is completely the same regarding barbaric Christian states. Though I am not sure why those do not seem to cause too much international issues.
|
On January 17 2015 11:47 jinorazi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 11:40 mcc wrote:On January 17 2015 11:08 Nyxisto wrote:
Obviously criticizing religion should be allowed. I also think this is more of a moral question than a legal one. As Christians it's pretty clear that we're supposed to not spread hate. So I don't think it's a great idea to create caricatures just to divide people and drive people apart, and if it crosses a certain line I think people should also have the option to fight these things legally(This is obviously also my perspective as a German, as people here have their "human dignity" constitutionally protected)
On the other hand it's obviously important that religious people have enough self-confidence and self irony to not get angry about every single provocation, and it's certainly true that some religious groups overall have thinner skin than others. Human dignity should be limited to things that you are born with. Religion is no such thing. All religions are dangerous tools of hatred and division and thus need to be combatted. It is moral imperative that religions are ridiculed. Once we start respecting religious feelings we might as well start respecting nazis and racists. They are also people whose feelings need to be protected according to your argument. Or are we going to cherrypick which evil ideologies are to be protected and which are not to be protected ? Anyway Germany has nothing to be proud of. Your blasphemy law is ridiculous, even though not terribly big deal. just because you feel that way doesn't mean its the right way and inefficient way to handle the situation. religion is a huge part of many people's lives and just to brush it off as some insignificant and useless idea is a slap in the face to shit load of people. its better to understand what religion is, help people understand what religion is and allow them to make up their mind themselves to improve their belief or to stray away from it. saying religion is ridiculous when its been part of human civilization perhaps longer than fire, is ridiculous. it causes nothing but more friction. religion can help or destroy like many things, taking religion out of the equation is not going to change anything. i personally have seen more good than bad and if it helps a person make them better, i'm all for it. but like anything, people can take advantage of it and people should be made aware of it.
Religion causes friction (some are better at it and some worse) by its mere existence. Thankfully religion is becoming smaller and smaller part of lives of less and less people. I am not sure if the trend will stay the same, but evidently it is possible to make religion nearly non-issue. And there are good empirical data to point out at least correlation between that and better quality of life including less violence. And when I mean religion I mean any ideology. Nationalisms and other -isms are the same. There are some who will also claim that nationalism, communism (as in the specific violent movement)
are good ideas, but they are as full of .... as whoever claims that religions are good ideas.
Really ? You saw some personal anecdotes of the "good" in a first world country. And you want to state that the bad that we all see is less prevalent ? You mean the suffering Catholic church brings all over Africa and South America. Just that trumps all good things that can be attributed to religion. Or even worse what islam causes in basically any islamic country with like 3 exceptions that are not completely terrible ? Or maybe we can talk about evangelical Christians in US. Any honest accounting is so lopsided that your statement is just simply false.
EDIT: Just today there were people killed over the world with the stated explanation that has absolutely no other cause than religion. I am talking about mobs again being violent due to Mohammed pictures. Those mobs would not be where they are if not for religion. No socioeconomic factor played any role whatsoever. That's about that idea that all that violence has nothing to do with religion. While there might be partially some other motivation in the case of the Paris attacks, there is absolutely none in this case.
Btw, my overarching point is not "religion is bad". That is a tangent, that is just to stress the following. If we are to stop offending muslims, be prepared to stop offending absolutely anyone, including some rather unpleasant ideas.
|
On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote: If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions
i hate that terrorism term, murder is murder. if it done by armies nobody cares how many people died whether they were soldiers or civilians. if they are soldiers we treat them like dying is part of their duty and if they are not soldiers, we still dont name it as terrorism.
how many babies died thanks to US jets during War on Terror? were their lives less important compared to journalists or vice versa, same goes for whom saying those terrorists actions are well deserved.
On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote: a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent.
then christianity is violent more than any other religion. [thinking medieval times, world wars etc.]
|
On January 17 2015 12:24 lastpuritan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote: If the rate of terrorist attacks one religion is way higher than other religions i hate that terrorism term, murder is murder. if it done by armies nobody cares how many people died whether they were soldiers or civilians. if they are soldiers we treat them like dying is part of their duty and if they are not soldiers, we still dont name it as terrorism. how many babies died thanks to US jets during War on Terror? were their lives less important compared to journalists or vice versa, same goes for whom saying those terrorists actions are well deserved. Show nested quote +On January 17 2015 10:04 rararock wrote: a country's murder rate is way higher than other countries, that is enough to label that religion or country as violent. then christianity is violent more than any other religion. [thinking medieval times, world wars etc.]
We don't live in the middle ages, we don't live in the 1940s. We live now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
