EPTShots fired at Charlie Hebdo offices - France - Page 135
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Read this before posting. Stay civil. As the news continues to develop, please remember no NSFW images or video. Thank you. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18814 Posts
On January 24 2015 04:22 xM(Z wrote: you dudes are useless. her speech was purposely obfuscated to create polemics ((is what (wannabe)politicians do)) and look at you ... neither knows what she meant (not that it matters anyway because that's just how the political game works) but that doesn't stop you from assuming all kinds of shit then go at each other. +1 politics. I disagree; WhiteDog and Kwisach's exchange has been quite interesting IMO. Part of why I think so no doubt has to do with my being an American lol. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 24 2015 04:21 WhiteDog wrote: And you didn't answer my question. Are there muslim people or groups in France who ask for a change in the curriculum and argue that they are following their faith ? And do you think a media would explain that the killer was a poster on TL if the two informations were not related ? You are attempting to change the topic - you were arguing that mentioning that these people had asked for changes in the curriculum in the name of their faith (like some Christians do in the US) was equivalent to Fourest saying that their faith led them to ask for the change in the curriculum. That's simply not true, as I repeatedly explained. If the killer says "I'm killing you in the name of TeamLiquid forums", it's relevant for a media reporting on the murder to mention that he said this or that he was a poster on the TeamLiquid forums. Again, that is not the same as saying that he committed the murder because he was a poster on the TeamLiquid forums. To go back to your first question, I don't know what she was referring to with regards to those specific Muslim families asking for curriculum changes. She was still not making a statement linking Islam or Muslims in general to what she was saying, contrary to what you're accusing her of. On January 24 2015 04:21 WhiteDog wrote: It's not double standard. You see, I argued (and you seem to put that aside everytime) that muslim do not exist as a community in France - unlike "Christian families". One exemple : in 2004 for the law on the veil, no muslim group argued against the law - only some individuals, mainly young girls - but for the law on the gay mariage, openly christian groups and representatives were against it (just like there are openly christian famillies who argued against the "gender theory"). So christian famillies =/= muslim families, the two are really different in France social context (one exist as an institutionalized group, with an institutionalized speech, and the other do not exist institutionally - it's not even a social group if you ask me - and people like Fourest talk in their places). Again, she was not talking about Christian families in general or Muslim families in general. She was talking about specific groups of people who asked for changes in a curriculum. And apparently when talking about a specific group of Muslim families it's problematic to you because you consider it to be an attack on Muslims/Islam in general, while that's not the case when it's a specific group of Christian families. A clear double standard. Fourest isn't talking "in the place" of anyone, as you would know if you had actually read her. On January 24 2015 04:24 WhiteDog wrote: That's my point, he believe she is only making factual comments, because you see he believe she produced valuable work. lol I don't "believe she is only making factual comments". I'm sure she makes her share of factual mistakes, and like I said previously I certainly don't agree with her on plenty of issues. She has still produced valuable work (something you can hardly comment on since you've never read her work). But more to the point of why we were discussing her in the first place, her being invited in the media and not Dieudonné is in no way an example of a "double standard" in the media, for the reasons I presented. Dieudonné is an antisemite who's been condemned for incitement to racial/religious hatred for his clearly antisemitic statements, and she's never been condemned of anything of the sort for the good reason that she isn't a racist, anti-Muslims, anti-Christians or antisemite and has never made statements of the sort. You completely distorting her words (some of which you have never read in the first place but are still commenting on even though you have no idea of what you're actually talking about) is not going to change that. @xM(Z: what she said was actually pretty straightforward and not "purposely obfuscated". She mentioned two examples of people attempting to get changes in the national curriculum and using their faith to justify them, and said that she considered it important not to give ground to particularisms (exactly like if she was talking about some specific Christian families asking intelligent design to be taught instead of evolution in the schools they attend). | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5268 Posts
if there's nothing wrong with her speech, purposely or otherwise and it's totally comprehensible, indubitable and unquestionable, then why the hell the last pages happened?. it's like watching a debate on guns where both parties are right, wrong and irrelevant at the same time. TO WHAT END?!. + Show Spoiler + on an interpersonal lever, WhiteDog will be forced to make and live by the distinction you're talking about in She said that those specific families were asking for a change in curriculum "in the name of their faith", not that having that faith is the factor leading those families to take that stance. but on a societal level, you're forced to acknowledge that that distinction is irrelevant, it doesn't matter, it doesn't exist; because you can't know which came first: the failing at integrism or the muslimism (you can insert there other separation criteria or other needed distinctions based on <<topic>> like: being poor, being stupid, being emotionally challenged etc). you need (or rather she needs) the causation there and you don't have it. without it, that's just a baseless 'he said she said' catch phrase which stirs shit up. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Again, she was not talking about Christian families in general or Muslim families in general. She was talking about specific groups of people who asked for changes in a curriculum. And apparently when talking about a specific group of Muslim families it's problematic to you because you consider it to be an attack on Muslims/Islam in general, while that's not the case when it's a specific group of Christian families. A clear double standard. Fourest isn't talking "in the place" of anyone, as you would know if you had actually read her. I told you that from a sociological standpoint, in today's france, christian families and muslim families is not the same reality - their "existence" is different. Christian families still have common practice (I gave some exemple, but I could add that, most notably, heavily catholic region still vote a certain way - see Todd & Lebras Le mystère français and their category of "zombie catholicism"). It is not the case for french citizens who happens to be muslim - it's not a "social" group. So when you define a certain part of our population - even if it's a minority in a minority - through their common religious belief, and when you make the link between the belief and their faith and some practice (without anyone actually saying this), you are making an interpretation. I asked you twice already to give me the name of a group or a representative or an intellectual that actually argue, in the name of his faith, that the shoah should not be teach in history class : there are none (in fact, the people that argue for that are closer to Dieudonné or Soral than Tariq Ramadan). If I said in the media that some "jews" are asking for a decrease of the taxation of banking activities "in the name of their faith" wouldn't that be considered antisemitic (even if it was factually true that one or two jew wanted a decrease in taxation) ? So Fourest's point of view is biaised : it' her that decide to use this qualification - muslim - to qualify the small number of people - who, as I said, are not all muslims - who have trouble integrating, and desire a change in our teachings. It's her own way of arguing, and her ideology, that explain her use of world, and even if she happen to make a distinction between the small minority in the minority that have trouble integrating or whatever, this point actually remain. This explain why people resent her that much for her points (easily one of the most hated commentator in France - you don't seem to see it, but she won a prize for the most racist comment of the year ("y'abon awards") for one of the quote I gave). That with the fact that her "work" and arguments are always directed at certain people, that she insult most of the people she talks with, that her way of quoting is dubious at best, etc. You are attempting to change the topic - you were arguing that mentioning that these people had asked for changes in the curriculum in the name of their faith (like some Christians do in the US) was equivalent to Fourest saying that their faith led them to ask for the change in the curriculum. That's simply not true, as I repeatedly explained. If the killer says "I'm killing you in the name of TeamLiquid forums", it's relevant for a media reporting on the murder to mention that he said this or that he was a poster on the TeamLiquid forums. Again, that is not the same as saying that he committed the murder because he was a poster on the TeamLiquid forums. To go back to your first question, I don't know what she was referring to with regards to those specific Muslim families asking for curriculum changes. She was still not making a statement linking Islam or Muslims in general to what she was saying, contrary to what you're accusing her of. Again you are putting aside my entire point about identification - if you DEFINE THEM AS MUSLIM, the goal is to IDENTIFICATE them, which means that "muslim" is a RELEVANT caracteristic for the topic at hand : it's not a simple factual statement. Again, I told you, there are thousands of ways to define someone, and it's absolutly amazing that you don't seem to see that the category "muslim" has become the new way to define delinquants - when some years ago, people were still referencing to their ethnicity (d'origine africaine, d'origine algérienne, etc.). And again : no group are arguing that we should remove the shoah "in the name of their faith". Just saying it, doesn't make it true. I won't answer repeat all this another time, seems like we're going in a circle at this point. I tried to explain to the best of my habilities what is my vision on this, but if you disagree on this specific point then let's leave it at that. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 25 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote: I told you that from a sociological standpoint, in today's france, christian families and muslim families is not the same reality - their "existence" is different. Christian families still have common practice (I gave some exemple, but I could add that, most notably, heavily catholic region still vote a certain way - see Todd & Lebras Le mystère français and their category of "zombie catholicism"). It is not the case for french citizens who happens to be muslim - it's not a "social" group. So when you define a certain part of our population - even if it's a minority in a minority - through their common religious belief, and when you make the link between the belief and their faith and some practice (without anyone actually saying this), you are making an interpretation. [...] If I said in the media that some "jews" are asking for a decrease of the taxation of banking activities "in the name of their faith" wouldn't that be considered antisemitic (even if it was factually true that one or two jew wanted a decrease in taxation) ? First, I'm very well aware of the differences in both institutional and social practices of Christianity and Islam in France, but you're deliberately accentuating differences to present "Christian families" as a monolithic block as opposed to "Muslim families" when the reality is much more complex than that. Since this was not the topic, though, and is, in fact, irrelevant to what I replied to you (see below), I'll move on. Second, you seem to be continuously missing the point of why religious affiliation was mentioned in the first place: because the actors themselves claimed it was in the name of their faith that they had a problem with the curriculum. Again, if in the U.S. a group of Christian families asks for a change in the curriculum to include Intelligent Design, and justify their demand on their faith, it is perfectly relevant in reporting on this that they are Christian families asking for a change in the name of their faith. This is not the same as saying that being Christian led them to ask for a change in curriculum, that their position is representative of all Christian families, etc. To address your example, if two Jews make a public statement of the type "We are Jews and we demand a decrease in the taxation of banking activities in the name of our Jewish faith", then it is not antisemitic at all to report that two Jews made that demand arguing it was in the name of their faith. What would be antisemitic would be to conclude that Jews in general want to accumulate money and control banks, that the Jewish faith is tied to wanting to control more money, etc. etc., basically any extrapolation of that specific statement by the two Jews to the broader Jewish population and the Jewish faith. That is not what Fourest is doing, as I explained to you several times. Where I do agree with you, though, is that you can often find examples of the religion of someone being brought up even though it has nothing to do with the event being discussed (the person did not declare that he did something in the name of his faith, for example, and he just happens to have done something and happens to be of a certain faith but there is no link between the two and he did not make a statement that there was). And we do need to pay attention to that because the term "Muslim" is indeed sometimes used for no reason whatsoever (for French citizens who happen to be Muslims and who did something, but the term "Christian" would not have been used if a Christian had done the same thing) and simply perpetuates negative associations between "Muslims" and acts that are condemned. Again, though, that's not what Fourest does. Finally, and as I said above, your arguments on the different statuses of Christianity and Islam in French society did not address what I pointed out with regards to your double standard in reacting to Fourest's words on specific Christian families and specific Muslim families. Apparently, talking the way she did about a specific group of Muslim families is problematic to you because you consider it to be an attack on Muslims/Islam in general, or at least a problematic link between "being Muslim" and a negative act, while that's not the case when it's a specific group of Christian families that is mentioned the exact same way. Suddenly, you're not concerned about the exact same thing but for Christians/Christianity in general, or a link between "being Christian" and a negative act. A clear double standard. On January 25 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote: I asked you twice already to give me the name of a group or a representative or an intellectual that actually argue, in the name of his faith, that the shoah should not be teach in history class : there are none (in fact, the people that argue for that are closer to Dieudonné or Soral than Tariq Ramadan). [...] And again : no group are arguing that we should remove the shoah "in the name of their faith". Just saying it, doesn't make it true. And I answered: "To go back to your first question, I don't know what she was referring to with regards to those specific Muslim families asking for curriculum changes. She was still not making a statement linking Islam or Muslims in general to what she was saying, contrary to what you're accusing her of." On January 25 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote: So Fourest's point of view is biaised : it' her that decide to use this qualification - muslim - to qualify the small number of people - who, as I said, are not all muslims - who have trouble integrating, [...] [I address what follows next] And again, this is a factually false assertion from you. As I've already told you countless times: Fourest did not use the term "Muslims" to refer to the people who have trouble integrating. She never said that the people who have trouble integrating are Muslims. She never said either that "Muslims" in general have trouble integrating. Get. this. through. your. head. At no point did she associate "Muslims" and "the people having trouble integrating". In the WSJ article, she was talking about those people being targeted by extremist preachers. Does she say extremist preachers target everyone having trouble integrating in France? No. Does she say extremist preachers target every Muslim, or that every Muslim can potentially get radicalized? Absolutely not. What did she actually write? She said that extremist preachers are trying to target Muslims who have trouble integrating, hoping to radicalize them. She's not even saying that the preachers will necessarily succeed in their attempts to radicalize their targets, she's simply saying that extremist preachers are trying to target the most vulnerable people of their own faith. She's not attacking Muslims, she's not attacking people who have trouble integrating, she's not attacking Muslims who have trouble integrating, she's attacking extremist preachers. Those extremist preachers are targeting specific people of their own faith, namely individuals among the Muslims who are having trouble integrating. There is absolutely nothing problematic with her statements. They're factual, and there is no attempt whatsoever to link being Muslim to something negative like "having trouble integrating". The fact that at this point in the discussion you are still claiming that she used the qualification "Muslim" to qualify "people who have trouble integrating" in general and who are not only Muslim, even though I explained to you repeatedly that she didn't and told you what she actually wrote, shows your utter lack of rigor and honesty in this discussion. You visibly have no interest in acknowledging facts when they don't support your view. On January 25 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote: [...] and desire a change in our teachings. It's her own way of arguing, and her ideology, that explain her use of world, and even if she happen to make a distinction between the small minority in the minority that have trouble integrating or whatever, this point actually remain. This explain why people resent her that much for her points (easily one of the most hated commentator in France - you don't seem to see it, but she won a prize for the most racist comment of the year ("y'abon awards") for one of the quote I gave). That with the fact that her "work" and arguments are always directed at certain people, that she insult most of the people she talks with, that her way of quoting is dubious at best, etc. Most of the people who "hate" her (and a vocal minority online is just that, btw) have not read her and happen to be extremely unfamiliar with her actual views and work, as you are. And please don't make me laugh with the "y'a bon award" - yeah, I guess that's rigor for you (and no, it was not for one of the quotes you gave, another wrong assertion from you). Also, her work is certainly not "always directed at certain people", if by that you mean Islam and Muslims - claiming that speaks volumes about how utterly ignorant of her work you are. She targets the far right and religious extremisms of all kinds, and has actually worked more on Catholic extremists than Muslim extremists. On January 25 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote: Again you are putting aside my entire point about identification - if you DEFINE THEM AS MUSLIM, the goal is to IDENTIFICATE them, which means that "muslim" is a RELEVANT caracteristic for the topic at hand : it's not a simple factual statement. Again, I told you, there are thousands of ways to define someone, and it's absolutly amazing that you don't seem to see that the category "muslim" has become the new way to define delinquants - when some years ago, people were still referencing to their ethnicity (d'origine africaine, d'origine algérienne, etc.). I addressed this above. In both of the cases you picked, mentioning the religion was a relevant characteristic for the topic at hand. In the case of the curriculums, it was because the changes were asked by the families in the name of their faith. In the case of the extremist preachers, it was because those extremist preachers are attempting to reach people of their own faith and radicalize them. In neither case did Fourest attempt to link "being Muslim" to anything. On January 25 2015 02:17 WhiteDog wrote: I won't answer repeat all this another time, seems like we're going in a circle at this point. I tried to explain to the best of my habilities what is my vision on this, but if you disagree on this specific point then let's leave it at that. Throughout this entire conversation, you have ignored the facts and constructed your arguments on outright distortions of what Fourest was saying, sometimes passing judgment on her words without having even read them. You have clearly no interest in being rigorous or factual about Fourest and are simply conducting your crusade against her because you incorrectly perceive her as an example of anti-Muslims/Islam bashing (which does exist, but not on Fourest's part). More fundamentally, and to go back once again to the starting point of this discussion which you have conveniently tried to sweep aside several times, her being invited in the media and not Dieudonné is in no way an example of a "double standard" in the media. Dieudonné is an antisemite who's been condemned for incitement to racial/religious hatred for his clearly antisemitic statements, and she's never been condemned of anything of the sort for the good reason that she isn't a racist, anti-Muslims, anti-Christians or antisemite and has never made statements of the sort. You completely distorting her words is not going to change that. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
because the actors themselves claimed it was in the name of their fait Prove it. That was my question like four post ago, and you still repeated the same things over and over : can you actually find someone who refused the teaching of the shoah and claimed that it was based on his religious belief. You are ALWAYS pushing away arguments by REPEATING something OFF TOPIC : I never stated that the christian group is monolithic, BUT there are group that present themselves as CHRISTIANS, and there are representative of the christian groups (PRIESTS FOR EXEMPLE) are actually talking in the public sphere about gender in programs or the gay mariage. That was not the case for imam or muslim group (that barely exist, the only one being the muslim council) who actually asked the religious to RESPECT the law against the veil and all law on "laïcité". This is why, as I've said, constantly pointing out the muslim as a social group (while it's a cosmos), even diverse and broadly integrated, is complete bullshit. Throughout this entire conversation, you have ignored the facts and constructed your arguments on outright distortions of what Fourest was saying, sometimes passing judgment on her words without having even read them. You have clearly no interest in being rigorous or factual about Fourest and are simply conducting your crusade against her because you incorrectly perceive her as an example of anti-Muslims/Islam bashing (which does exist, but not on Fourest's part). No I gave you plenty of evidence on the fact that Fourest "work" is full of shit, and you are the one who always gave interpretation of her work (no she didn't mean that she mean this, no it's not this because this). Just because you like her doesn't mean I have to accept your arguments, most notably your weak arguments on the "true intentions" behind her points. I made the comparaison with your point on Siné's case, and you pushed it away based on Val's point, which was exactly what I was saying three thousand post ago : the mainstream media are biased and gives racists, ethnicists and religious visions on social phenomena that always put aside other criteria - in the name of the defense of "minorities", which is why Fourest is PERFECTLY FINE near Zemmour, Finkelkraut, and even Dieudonné if you ask me. Even referring to the discourse of integration is racist by nature, especially when we talk about kids who are born in France and educated in France. In North Africa or the Middle East, where they pose a direct threat to the regimes in place, they are closely watched, even chased. But in Europe, they take advantage of free speech and democracy as well as the failure of Arab immigrants to integrate. Here, they recruit at their leisure–offering renewed pride and a political family united by a belief in radical Islam to thousands of alienated Muslims. The West is used as a formidable base camp to recruit new troops. With them, the Islamists hope to take their revenge in the East. That’s why the leaders of radical political Islam are found more often in London or Geneva than in Kabul or Baghdad… Fourest War on Arabia. But yeah you're right, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION IS THE RIGHT ONE. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 26 2015 05:52 WhiteDog wrote: Prove it. That was my question like four post ago, and you still repeated the same things over and over : can you actually find someone who refused the teaching of the shoah and claimed that it was based on his religious belief. I'll repeat: "To go back to your first question, I don't know what she was referring to with regards to those specific Muslim families asking for curriculum changes. She was still not making a statement linking Islam or Muslims in general to what she was saying, contrary to what you're accusing her of." On January 26 2015 05:52 WhiteDog wrote: You are ALWAYS pushing away arguments by REPEATING something OFF TOPIC : I never stated that the christian group is monolithic, BUT there are group that present themselves as CHRISTIANS, and there are representative of the christian groups (PRIESTS FOR EXEMPLE) are actually talking in the public sphere about gender in programs or the gay mariage. That was not the case for imam or muslim group (that barely exist, the only one being the muslim council) who actually asked the religious to RESPECT the law against the veil and all law on "laïcité". This is why, as I've said, constantly pointing out the muslim as a social group (while it's a cosmos), even diverse and broadly integrated, is complete bullshit. You're the one alternating between distortions and off-topic points. Nobody claimed that Islam and Christianity and similarly institutionalized in France. Nobody. Nobody claimed either that "Muslims" were an homogeneous social group - in fact, in neither case did Fourest even refer to "Muslims" in general! You are arguing against shitty strawmen that are irrelevant to what Fourest actually said, and in this case you are NOT responding to what I pointed out with regards to your double standard. The fact that there are Christian groups taking positions in the public debate about issues like gender in curriculums does not change the fact that these Christian groups do not represent all Christians (obviously). So when Fourest makes a statement about specific Muslim families and specific Christian families asking for changes in the curriculum, if you're going to complain that she's attacking all Muslims because she mentions those specific Muslim families then you should also be complaining that she's attacking all Christians because she mentions those specific Christian families. The fact that you're not shows your double standard. On January 26 2015 05:52 WhiteDog wrote: No I gave you plenty of evidence on the fact that Fourest "work" is full of shit, and you are the one who always gave interpretation of her work (no she didn't mean that she mean this, no it's not this because this). Just because you like her doesn't mean I have to accept your arguments, most notably your weak arguments on the "true intentions" behind her points. You can't even quote her properly because you haven't read her - this was not a matter of me pushing a positive interpretation of what she said, it was a matter of me correcting your blatantly distorted versions of what she actually wrote. You haven't been able to actually refute a single one of the arguments I presented you with except claim that they're "interpretations" with no factual basis whatsoever to claim that she meant something else. On January 26 2015 05:52 WhiteDog wrote: I made the comparaison with your point on Siné's case, and you pushed it away based on Val's point, which was exactly what I was saying three thousand post ago : the mainstream media are biased and gives racists, ethnicists and religious visions on social phenomena that always put aside other criteria - in the name of the defense of "minorities", which is why Fourest is PERFECTLY FINE near Zemmour, Finkelkraut, and even Dieudonné if you ask me. Even referring to the discourse of integration is racist by nature, especially when we talk about kids who are born in France and educated in France. I didn't "push it away based on Val's point". I explained to you that there was no double standard because firing Siné was perfectly consistent with the standard that the journal applies for everyone: if you make fun of a religion, that's fine, if you target religious people as a group, that's not. It's the same for attacks on Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Buddhists, etc. - if you're seen as attacking the believers of a faith in general, you get fired. No double standard. Fourest is nowhere near those people, and certainly not Dieudonné, as I explained. You wouldn't know since you haven't read her. I'll repeat: More fundamentally, and to go back once again to the starting point of this discussion which you have conveniently tried to sweep aside several times, her being invited in the media and not Dieudonné is in no way an example of a "double standard" in the media. Dieudonné is an antisemite who's been condemned for incitement to racial/religious hatred for his clearly antisemitic statements, and she's never been condemned of anything of the sort for the good reason that she isn't a racist, anti-Muslims, anti-Christians or antisemite and has never made statements of the sort. You completely distorting her words is not going to change that. On January 26 2015 05:52 WhiteDog wrote: Fourest War on Arabia. But yeah you're right, ONLY YOUR INTERPRETATION IS THE RIGHT ONE. That's not even the actual name of the article, how utterly clueless can you be?! The actual name of the article is War for Eurabia, and was not selected by Fourest but by the WSJ - and she denounced it. And in that text, she says exactly what I told you, so I'll quote myself again since you're apparently in need of serious help to understand even the most basic of sentences: In the WSJ article, she was talking about those people being targeted by extremist preachers. Does she say extremist preachers target everyone having trouble integrating in France? No. Does she say extremist preachers target every Muslim, or that every Muslim can potentially get radicalized? Absolutely not. What did she actually write? She said that extremist preachers are trying to target those among the Muslim population who have trouble integrating (NOT Muslims in general), hoping to radicalize them. She's not even saying that the preachers will necessarily succeed in their attempts to radicalize their targets, she's simply saying that extremist preachers are trying to target the most vulnerable people of their own faith. She's not attacking Muslims, she's not attacking people who have trouble integrating, she's not attacking Muslims who have trouble integrating, she's attacking extremist preachers. Those extremist preachers are targeting specific people of their own faith, namely individuals among the Muslims who are having trouble integrating. There is absolutely nothing problematic with her statements. They're factual, and there is no attempt whatsoever to link being Muslim to something negative like "having trouble integrating". Do you think "thousands of alienated Muslims" is supposed to mean that Muslims in general are alienated? Why would she say "thousands", then? Do you think "thousands of alienated Muslims" is supposed to refer to "people who have trouble integrating" in general? Again, why would she say thousands, then? Like I told you, she is referring to some of those within the Muslim population who are having trouble integrating (not even all of those Muslims who are having trouble integrating), and is explaining that they are being targeted by the extremist preachers the article is about. Get. a. clue. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
That's not even the actual name of the article, how utterly clueless can you be?! The actual name of the article is War for Eurabia Maybe I know the real name of the article and maybe I'm just typing too fast and not thinking because you bore me to death with your weak arguments. I quoted the text and what she is saying is pretty clear. You're still arguing and giving your own interpretation. Even the term "arab" is stupid - it's a low class journalist, with no intellect, and you can masturbate on her "valuable work" all day I don't care about it, but don't make it seem like she is interesting. I'll repeat: "To go back to your first question, I don't know what she was referring to with regards to those specific Muslim families asking for curriculum changes. She was still not making a statement linking Islam or Muslims in general to what she was saying, contrary to what you're accusing her of." Then you don't know... Then don't make it seem like her comment are BASED ON ANYTHING than her own misrepresentations : if you say that it those people who want the shoah away from the curriculum are doing it claiming that it is "in the name of their faith", and that you don't know if it is true, then it is a baseless comment, so stop arguing. if you're going to complain that she's attacking all Muslims because she mentions those specific Muslim families I never said that and you continue to argue against it, I just QUOTED HER and stated that it is untrue and stupid. But I guess you like arguing against the wind. Continue on. You're the one alternating between distortions and off-topic points. Nobody claimed that Islam and Christianity and similarly institutionalized in France. Nobody. I never stated that they are similarly institutionalized, I stated that since they both are so different, you cannot use the term "muslim communities" and "muslim families" in the same way. You're the one who continue to making comparaison between catholic and muslim. I didn't "push it away based on Val's point". I explained to you that there was no double standard because firing Siné was perfectly consistent with the standard that the journal applies for everyone It's fucking untrue and you keep saying those baseless arguments ! Just because you think this way, doesn't make it indeniable truth. His comment was not insulting in any way (as the court judged), and MOST OF THE TIME journalist are not fired before condamnation - Zemmour is a good exemple of that. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 26 2015 07:21 WhiteDog wrote: Maybe I know the real name of the article and maybe I'm just typing too fast and not thinking because you bore me to death with your weak arguments. I QUOTED THE TEXT AND WHAT SHE IS SAYING IS PRETTY CLEAR. You're still arguing and giving YOUR POINT OF VIEW. Actually, you already incorrectly referred to it as "War on Arabia" in a previous post, and I already corrected you on that, so I'm pretty sure you were simply wrong. Perhaps you should stop "typing too fast" and take a second to think. Yes, what she is saying is pretty clear, which is why I'm amazed I still have to explain it to you. On January 26 2015 07:21 WhiteDog wrote: Even the term "arab" is stupid - it's a low class journalist, with no intellect, and you can masturbate on her "valuable work" all day I don't care about it, but don't make it seem like she is interesting. You're free to find her uninteresting if you wish. That still doesn't make your claims about her positions true. On January 26 2015 07:21 WhiteDog wrote: I never said that and you continue to argue against it, I just QUOTED HER and stated that it is untrue and stupid. But I guess you like arguing against the wind. Continue on. You've clearly been arguing that she made generalizations and associations that you condemned, and I responded on that. If you're going to conceded that there was no link to Muslims or Islam in what she said, great! On January 26 2015 07:21 WhiteDog wrote: Then you don't know... Then don't make it seem like her comment are BASED ON ANYTHING than her own misrepresentations : if you say that it those people who want the shoah away from the curriculum are doing it claiming that it is "in the name of their faith", and that you don't know if it is true, then it is a baseless comment, so stop arguing. Stop arguing what? How she said it makes absolutely clear that she is not making a causal relation between having a faith and asking for those curriculum changes. That you would like to know which event she's referring to doesn't change the fact that what she said contained absolutely nothing that was targeting Muslims or Islam in general. On January 26 2015 07:21 WhiteDog wrote: I never stated that they are similarly institutionalized, I stated that since they both are so different, you cannot use the term "muslim communities" and "muslim families" in the same way. You're the one who continue to making comparaison between catholic and muslim. I know that you never stated that they are similarly institutionalized, that's what I just said. The point is that you're going on and on about the two not being similarly institutionalized while nobody is claiming the opposite. Like I said, the fact that there are Christian groups taking positions in the public debate about issues like gender in curriculums does not change the fact that these Christian groups do not represent all Christians (obviously). So when Fourest makes a statement about specific Muslim families and specific Christian families asking for changes in the curriculum, if you're going to complain that she's attacking all Muslims because she mentions those specific Muslim families then you should also be complaining that she's attacking all Christians because she mentions those specific Christian families. The fact that you're not shows your double standard. On January 26 2015 07:21 WhiteDog wrote: It's fucking untrue and you keep saying those baseless arguments ! Just because you think this way, doesn't make it indeniable truth. His comment was not insulting in any way (as the court judged), and MOST OF THE TIME journalist are not fired before condamnation - Zemmour is a good exemple of that. It's perfectly true and that position has been explicitly stated in the pages of the journal countless times - do you not read it either. If you're attacking religions, that's fine. If you're attacking religious people as a group, that's not. Last time I checked Zemmour doesn't work at Charlie Hebdo. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Actually, you already incorrectly referred to it as "War on Arabia" in a previous post, and I already corrected you on that, so I'm pretty sure you were simply wrong. Perhaps you should stop "typing too fast" and take a second to think. Yes, what she is saying is pretty clear, which is why I'm amazed I still have to explain it to you. I know and ? It only shows that I've been bored by your arguments quite a moment ago. It's perfectly true and that position has been explicitly stated in the pages of the journal countless times - I'm guessing you don't read it either. If you're attacking religions, that's fine. If you're attacking religious people as a group, that's not. Last time I checked Zemmour doesn't work at Charlie Hebdo. Again, you're making it seem like it is a fact. The ignorant who knows all. 1) It's not all about Charlie, but also about the medias overall (that were all massively against Siné for his "antisemitism" and barely relayed the fact that he won his process, or even the content of the chronic) 2) some contributor at charlie stated what I said, so maybe they don't read charlie either (Olivier Cyran, Delfeil de Ton). You've clearly been arguing that she made generalizations and associations that you condemned, and I responded on that. If you're going to conceded that there was no link to Muslims or Islam in what she said, great! She made generalization in making a link between islam and desire for a change in the curriculum yes. She made generalization when she argued that the integration of arabs is a failure, yes. Stop arguing what? How she said it makes absolutely clear that she is not making a causal relation between having a faith and asking for those curriculum changes. That you would like to know which event she's referring to doesn't change the fact that what she said contained absolutely nothing that was targeting Muslims or Islam in general. That her comment is not her own interpretation, which is what I've been saying for days. Even if she's not making a causal relation, she's pointing out a baseless relation (even if it's just a simple relation of affinity). I know that you never stated that they are similarly institutionalized, that's what I just said. The point is that you're going on and on about the two not being similarly institutionalized while nobody is claiming the opposite. Like I said, the fact that there are Christian groups taking positions in the public debate about issues like gender in curriculums does not change the fact that these Christian groups do not represent all Christians (obviously). So when Fourest makes a statement about specific Muslim families and specific Christian families asking for changes in the curriculum, if you're going to complain that she's attacking all Muslims because she mentions those specific Muslim families then you should also be complaining that she's attacking all Christians because she mentions those specific Christian families. The fact that you're not shows your double standard. I'm sorry but I've written at least three times my arguments and you're still unable to understands it. At this point it's either you don't want to understand it or you are unable to. I've said - take your time to read - that because the two groups are not institutionalized in the same way, mean that you cannot generalize and make assumption on these groups in the same way. Then, I said that there are no proof that muslim famillies are asking for a change in the curriculum (and you were unable to give any like Fourest) - unlike christian famillies because they are institutionalized - which mean that you cannot say "some muslim families ask for a change in the history teachings based on their faith" while you can say that "part of the christian community is asking for a change in the teachings regarding gender "theory" (because, again, not only groups but also representative of the christian faith said so). Let's talk again about the double standard : Tesson said that "muslims" are the core problem of France, that they created the problem - NO institution attacked him in justice, no politician took about it aside from Duflot maybe (if anyone sad in the media that the jews are the core problem of France because they attack laïcité through communautarism and zionist propaganda, I would go in prison the next day), and only a normal citizen did so. He also asked for the death penalty for Dieudonné - again no one cared about that, it's not violent enough I guess. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 26 2015 07:48 WhiteDog wrote: I know and ? It only shows that I've been bored by your arguments quite a moment ago. It shows your lack of rigor. On January 26 2015 07:48 WhiteDog wrote: Again, you're making it seem like it is a fact. The ignorant who knows all. 1) It's not all about Charlie, but also about the medias overall (that were all massively against Siné for his "antisemitism" and barely relayed the fact that he won his process, or even the content of the chronic) 2) some contributor at charlie stated what I said, so maybe they don't read charlie either (Olivier Cyran, Delfeil de Ton). You made a claim with regards to the firing of Siné by Charlie Hebdo, as if it constituted an example of a double standard. I explained to you why it didn't: if you're attacking religions, that's fine, if you're attacking religious people as a group, that's not. You have no rebuttal to what I just presented you with. On January 26 2015 07:48 WhiteDog wrote: She made generalization in making a link between islam and desire for a change in the curriculum yes. She made generalization when she argued that the integration of arabs is a failure, yes. As I explained, she did not make a link between Islam and desire for a change in the curriculum, and she did not argue that the integration of Arabs in general was a failure. On January 26 2015 07:48 WhiteDog wrote: That her comment is not her own interpretation, which is what I've been saying for days. Even if she's not making a causal relation, she's pointing out a baseless relation (even if it's just a simple relation of affinity). I don't get what "Stop arguing that her comment is not her own interpretation" is supposed to mean. She did not "point out a baseless relation", as I explained. On January 26 2015 07:48 WhiteDog wrote: I'm sorry but I've written at least three times my arguments and you're still unable to understands it. At this point it's either you don't want to understand it or you are unable to. I've said - take your time to read - that because the two groups are not institutionalized in the same way, mean that you cannot generalize and make assumption on these groups in the same way. Then, I said that there are no proof that muslim famillies are asking for a change in the curriculum (and you were unable to give any like Fourest) - unlike christian famillies because they are institutionalized - which mean that you cannot say "some muslim families ask for a change in the history teachings based on their faith" while you can say that "part of the christian community is asking for a change in the teachings regarding gender "theory" (because, again, not only groups but also representative of the christian faith said so). It's funny because you keep accusing me of not understanding what you're saying, when not only do I understand you but I actually reply to your arguments (you should try that some time), and you acknowledge yourself that you don't pay attention to what I am saying because you've decided they're "boring arguments" (brilliant retort!). Again, the differences in institutionalization between Islam and Christianity in France are irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that there is no reason not to criticize a perceived generalization to all Christians coming from a statement on specific Christian families if you're going to criticize a perceived generalization to all Muslims coming from the exact same statement on specific Muslim families (NOT on invented institutionalized groups of Muslims families). The fact that there are institutionalized Christian groups does not suddenly make ok a generalization to all of Christians or Christianity of certain things done by specific Christian families. Now that's not at all what Fourest did for either Islam or Christianity, but if you're angry about what you perceive as a link with regards to Islam then you should be equally angry about the exact same thing for Christianity. That you're not shows your double standard. On January 26 2015 07:48 WhiteDog wrote: Let's talk again about the double standard : Tesson said that "muslims" are the core problem of France, that they created the problem - NO institution attacked him in justice, no politician took about it aside from Duflot maybe (if anyone sad in the media that the jews are the core problem of France because they attack laïcité through communautarism and zionist propaganda, I would go in prison the next day), and only a normal citizen did so. He also asked for the death penalty for Dieudonné - again no one cared about that, it's not violent enough I guess. In case you did not know, the Public prosecutor's office of the city of Paris actually opened one week ago an inquiry into his comments for incitation to racial hatred, and several complaints were filed to the CSA, which has also seized the case. Another good example that there is no double standard in the justice system, thanks! | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
When you give your own interpretation of what Fourest argue, and repeat those argument ten times in various posts, and don't understand that it's your point of view and that her comment are not that precise... again it's a little frightening When you say that you replied to my arguments, all you do is showing how you can't understand any of my points. It is not irrelevant that islam and christianity are entirely different in regard to Fourest comment. You are still going at it with this difference between "some muslim / christian families" and "all muslims / christian families", which shows how you don't understand what you are reading / saying. When she says that some "muslim families" are asking for a change in the teaching of the shoah in the name of their faith, as I've stated many time, it is not a factual comment because you don't have exemple (even just one families) that actually argue for a change in the curriculum based on their faith. All we know is that there are various comments and complaints coming from kids in regards to the teaching of the shoah : those comments have nothing to do with islam. When you say that "some christian families" are asking for a change in the teachings regarding the dreaded "gender theory" it is factually true, as there are not only families but representative of the christian faith that argue for such change. I'm not saying all christian families are asking for a change, since it would be a stupid comment, I'm just saying there are arguments against "gender theory" that are based on a religious discourse (even in the muslim families) but not in regard to the teaching of the shoah. It's just a fact. And when you make an amalgam like this (which is at the core of Fourest's discourse), you're just trying to push communities against communities. You don't seem to know how to read regarding your last comment, but I guess it's in the vein of your old comments : the LICRA didn't act, the CSA waited an entire week, the government didn't say a thing about it, for a guy who asked for the death penalty for Dieudonné some time ago. Now compare it to any of Dieudonné's affair, where the prime minister himself ask for an interdiction. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 26 2015 23:37 WhiteDog wrote: When I point out that in media the Siné affair was treated as an affair of antisemitism, with only fringe commentator taking the side of Siné, the only thing you can is point out Val's arguments which are at the core of the double standard (since they're false). And you then argue that I have "no rebuttal"... At this point it's a little frightening. Charlie Hebdo's position had nothing whatsoever to do with a double standard - in fact it's exactly the opposite of a double standard, since it aims to treat every religion and religious people the same: if you're attacking religions, that's fine, if you're attacking (any) religious people as a group, that's not. The fact that you disagree with how Siné's statement was perceived doesn't suddenly transform the reasoning behind his firing into a double standard. On January 26 2015 23:37 WhiteDog wrote: When you give your own interpretation of what Fourest argue, and repeat those argument ten times in various posts, and don't understand that it's your point of view and that her comment are not that precise... again it's a little frightening It's not my own interpretation, it's what she said textually. On January 26 2015 23:37 WhiteDog wrote: When you say that you replied to my arguments, all you do is showing how you can't understand any of my points. It is not irrelevant that islam and christianity are entirely different in regard to Fourest comment. You are still going at it with this difference between "some muslim / christian families" and "all muslims / christian families", which shows how you don't understand what you are reading / saying. When she says that some "muslim families" are asking for a change in the teaching of the shoah in the name of their faith, as I've stated many time, it is not a factual comment because you don't have exemple (even just one families) that actually argue for a change in the curriculum based on their faith. The fact that I don't have an exemple does not mean it's not a factual statement. It may or may not be one, we'd have to ask Fourest which cases she was referring to. Regardless of whether or not it was a factual statement, however she was still not referring to all Muslim families or to Islam in general. On January 26 2015 23:37 WhiteDog wrote: All we know is that there are various comments and complaints coming from kids in regards to the teaching of the shoah : those comments have nothing to do with islam. When you say that "some christian families" are asking for a change in the teachings regarding the dreaded "gender theory" it is factually true, as there are not only families but representative of the christian faith that argue for such change. I'm not saying all christian families are asking for a change, since it would be a stupid comment, I'm just saying there are arguments against "gender theory" that are based on a religious discourse (even in the muslim families) but not in regard to the teaching of the shoah. It's just a fact. And when you make an amalgam like this (which is at the core of Fourest's discourse), you're just trying to push communities against communities. Fourest made no amalgam. She did not imply that all Muslim families or all who follow Islam asked for a change in curriculum (in fact it was pretty clear from how she said it that she was talking about very specific individual cases), just like she did not imply that all Christian families or all who follow Christianity asked for a change. You are making up an "amalgam" from her where there is none. To repeat AGAIN what I keep telling you and that you keep ignoring even though I directly respond to what you just said, the fact that there are Christian groups taking positions in the public debate about issues like gender in curriculums does not change the fact that these Christian groups do not represent all Christians (obviously). So when Fourest makes a statement about specific Muslim families and specific Christian families asking for changes in the curriculum, if you're going to complain that she's attacking all Muslims because she mentions those specific Muslim families then you should also be complaining that she's attacking all Christians because she mentions those specific Christian families (she did not mention Christian associations). The fact that you're not shows your double standard: in the case of the Christian families she referred to you immediately understood that she was not implying anything with regards to Christians in general or to the Christian faith, but apparently when she says the exact same thing mentioning specific Muslim families you jump up and cry that she's making generalizations to Muslims or the Muslim faith. She was not making any generalization, in either case. On January 26 2015 23:37 WhiteDog wrote: You don't seem to know how to read regarding your last comment, but I guess it's in the vein of your old comments : the LICRA didn't act, the CSA waited an entire week, the government didn't say a thing about it, for a guy who asked for the death penalty for Dieudonné some time ago. Now compare it to any of Dieudonné's affair, where the prime minister himself ask for an interdiction. I don't know how to read? Funny from the guy who once again is factually wrong (seriously, don't you get tired of being simply flat-out wrong?): here's the official statement from the LICRA following Tesson's comment: read it here. Notice the part where it says "La Licra a décidé de se constituer partie civile dans ce dossier." (they filed/joined a civil suit against Tesson)? Notice the part where they condemn his statements as incitement to racial hatred? Oops, looks like you have no clue of what you're talking about again! The interdiction of Dieudonné's show was a one-time case for a specific show where it was known that he would proceed with antisemitic statements, and his subsequent shows were not forbidden. It also came after years of him getting condemned over and over again for antisemitic statements. Tesson's case has been taken up by the courts, exactly like when Dieudonné started with his hate speech. No double standard in the justice system again, thanks for shooting yourself in the foot! | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
mmmm no! I (nor soul nor brain nor body) cannot bring myself to read this thread or declare anything. My eyes, my ears my nose and mouth start acting "special" (when I try).. I want to rip up this meat of a shell and become pure will / force.. but invariably only half a dozen words keep popping in my brain (always the same over and over), my eyes my veins my soul.. everywhere: f ck my life, cabu is dead . + Show Spoiler [all along the watchtower] + I will try again in a week, a month, 13 hours.. who knows?.. inshalla! (Edit: i survived until page 6 this time, out of 135 something pages) Since I posted somewhere else on the internet of my despair/pain in another "house/forum".. I got only one internet response that made me "evolve" from my/this rut. Maybe it can "help" someone else too. I was not in a good place (I am definitely not "charlie" (not then not ever (maybe see later just how much I am not (in a potential future post))) and he "answered" by saying: + Show Spoiler + Cabu is in the safest place he can be, he is in your heart. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Bojas
Netherlands2397 Posts
On May 23 2015 22:31 fluidrone wrote: Hi, ... just checking in.. mmmm no! I (nor soul nor brain nor body) cannot bring myself to read this thread or declare anything. My eyes, my ears my nose and mouth start acting "special" (when I try).. I want to rip up this meat of a shell and become pure will / force.. but invariably only half a dozen words keep popping in my brain (always the same over and over), my eyes my veins my soul.. everywhere: f ck my life, cabu is dead . + Show Spoiler [all along the watchtower] + I will try again in a week, a month, 13 hours.. who knows?.. inshalla! (Edit: i survived until page 6 this time, out of 135 something pages) Since I posted somewhere else on the internet of my despair/pain in another "house/forum".. I got only one internet response that made me "evolve" from my/this rut. Maybe it can "help" someone else too. I was not in a good place (I am definitely not "charlie" (not then not ever (maybe see later just how much I am not (in a potential future post))) and he "answered" by saying: + Show Spoiler + Cabu is in the safest place he can be, he is in your heart. You what mate? | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
I have had several dreams since these murders occurred of the days/weeks/months I would go to visit these killers in their cells (had they not been killed themselves).. to read them cabu's lifestory.. day after day.. make them tell me everything.. make me find the people responsible for this... And then.. when I am quite sure it was my fault.. our fault.., then I would be back where I was the day after these terrible killings occurred. As i typed earlier.. f ck my life! | ||
|
VelJa
France1109 Posts
and I dont get why you tumbs up this post. | ||
|
fluidrone
France1478 Posts
i think of these events like once every few months and i still want to make a difference so that it never happens again anywhere in any form. ![[image loading]](https://img.lemde.fr/2007/02/06/0/0/2907/1905/688/0/60/0/ill_864418_par659127.jpg) happy cabu day to us all <3 | ||
| ||
