French Magazine Attacked by Terrorists

Wilber · January 20, 2015

Okay back to the topic...

In all I'm for free-speech and protecting it but not for free-defamatory and insults. So I guess Charlie reaped what they sowed, its just sad that people are losing lives over this mess.

Out of necessity, freedom of speech must include the freedom to be offended. Certainly Charlie Hedbo goes out of its way to offend at times but how many people has it beaten or murdered? How many businesses, homes and vehicles has it burned?

jbg · January 20, 2015

If Muslims want acceptance in the Western countries that they have chosen to live in - and have graciously accepted them......then every Mosque and every Imam and Cleric should be shouting the following from every lectern - and Western governments should include these as "personal assurances" before admitting immigrants.

1) Modern Islam does not condone killing those who want to leave the religion

2) Modern Islam does not condone killing those who commit blasphemy

3) Modern Islam rejects the idea that non-Muslims are infidels. Islam accepts the concept of Freedom of Religion - that people are free to choose their own path to God.

Until this happens - publicly and continually, a good portion of the population will rightly be suspect of Islam - and by extension, have an element of suspicion towards Muslims in general. While it's a suspicion that has tarred millions of peace-loving Muslims, it's a suspicion that has been well-earned by the archaic actions of more than a few.

There are obviously many on this board who have a low opinion of those of the Islamic faith. Their excuses seem to be that either there is something genetically or inherently wrong with them or that Islam is a religion of violence that encourages Muslims to react violently in defence of their religion.

Read KeepitSimple's post carefully. What he suggests is a bare minimum for their participation as equals in a civilized society.

-1=e^ipi · January 20, 2015

Interesting that you think you can convert or deconvert by disrespecting people for their beliefs, and acting superior to them.

How am I 'acting superior' to others?

I do not respect ridiculous beliefs because ridiculous beliefs merit ridicule, not respect.

Furthermore, ridicule is one of many tools that can be employed to convey a point.

But I have not made the claim that I think I can convert people by disrespecting their beliefs. More is needed such as pointing out the lack of evidence to justify their beliefs.

Is this what they're teaching now in new atheist fantasyland?

There is no 'atheist fantansyland'. Belief in fantasylands is something that is primarily done by religious people.

Think for a second, how many people change their opinions about anything because some know-it-all tells them they're wrong?

I made no such claim, please do not strawman me. Furthermore, I reject appeal to authority fallacies, so why would I try to use appeal to authority fallacies to convince people of anything?

everyone....no exceptions does most of their decision-making at an unconscious level.

And you back this claim up how? Do neuro-atypical people not exist in your worldview? Do you not accept the existence of neuro-diversity?

And a feeling of certainty about correctness is a secondary emotion, not a result of pure, conscious reasoning!

I'm pretty sure that 1+1 = 2. But I guess that must be due to emotion because you say so! *sarcasm*

What separates those who are truly more open to new evidence from those who will continue to reject change

I don't know, many things?

is how much emotional attachment they feel with core beliefs.

I'm pretty sure there can be other reasons. Have you dealt much with bipolar or schizophrenic individuals?

And this is a very fundamental aspect of personality that does not change during adulthood.

And you 'know' this how?

It is a product of genetics and the epigenetic effects of brain development during early childhood.

Yes because the environment has no effect on people at all...

If you truly are basing even your core beliefs...like what sort of universe we live in, on reason and evidence, you will be likely to change and alter your beliefs throughout your life....and that pisses a lot of people off, not just religious fundamentalists, but atheist fundamentalists also

Please define an atheist fundamentalist and provide some examples.

At one time, if you didn't belong to the church, you had nowhere to turn in times of need.

Because it is well known that family and friends do not exist. *sarcasm*

Find me any prominent atheist advocate writer, blogger, podcaster etc. who strays outside of standard modern humanist teaching that is not only pro-science, but also unquestioningly pro-technology, and in fact has faith that future tech will fix all of our present messes, even those largely caused by the technologies developed so far, and will save us from self-destruction no matter how bad the situation looks...

Well I don't think you have adequately defined what 'the standard modern humanist teaching' is but I think Stephen Hawking satisfies your request.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

I haven't come across any high profile atheists of late who haven't adopted a humanist version of redemption.

Maybe because redemption is a religious concept?

Oh wait, not all atheists lack a religion.

In that case, I'll use David Suzuki. He is an atheist, but his environmentalist religion certainly has the concept of redemption.

Except that instead of relying on a supernatural intercessor, the humanist faith is that human invention will save our world from extinction and set us on course for an increasingly brighter 'heaven-like' future, that will include the standard tropes of leaving Earth and conquering the solar system...then the galaxy etc., and virtual immortality through conquering death by new technological innovations.

You don't appear to understand the meaning of the word humanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

Violations of international law are only prosecuted when they are committed by states that have become the focus of regime change by the U.S. Otherwise, it's meaningless....which was my point. The only law that is truly international, is corporate governance through trade and banking regulating bodies like the WTO. There is no international law with teeth that will ever be able to enforce environmental standards, but when it comes to important things like controlling money, that's different.

I think your word view is far too simplistic. Tell me, how does North Korea fit into this and which corporation is controlling them? What about Cuba or the Islamic State?

The important stuff is done by the deep state of government, and they work in secret, and intend to keep it that way!

Could you please justify this claim with evidence? Or this another one of your baseless assertions?

They have created reams of propaganda through entertainment culture...some of it accurately termed - Militainment, that pretends they are only interested in protecting us from foreign and domestic threats....and not serving their true purpose - running an empire.

Or maybe the phenomena you are describing is a result of confirmation bias and ignorance, so no conspiracy is needed.

and more likely than not to be near the bottom of the economic hierarchy...

Please define 'economic hierarchy' and provide me with a method of determining someone's position in this 'economic hierarchy'.

crap like Hebdo, which doesn't acknowledge these inconvenient facts in their own society, is racist and anti-immigrant in much of their crap where they will claim they are only criticizing religious beliefs.

Criticizing religious beliefs is not racist since religion != race. But I guess you and the Ben Afflecks of the world may never understand this simple fact.

There is no reason for a "men's rights" movement to exist in the first place in any nation I am aware of, let alone here in Canada!

I'll forgive your dismissal of men's rights issues since you simply appear to be ignorant and have not been informed of these issues. Anyway, this is going off topic, so I'll create other threads on men's rights issues in the future.

Edited January 20, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

eyeball · January 20, 2015

If Muslims want acceptance in the Western countries that they have chosen to live in - and have graciously accepted them......then every Mosque and every Imam and Cleric should be shouting the following from every lectern - and Western governments should include these as "personal assurances" before admitting immigrants.

1) Modern Islam does not condone killing those who want to leave the religion

2) Modern Islam does not condone killing those who commit blasphemy

3) Modern Islam rejects the idea that non-Muslims are infidels. Islam accepts the concept of Freedom of Religion - that people are free to choose their own path to God.

Until this happens - publicly and continually, a good portion of the population will rightly be suspect of Islam - and by extension, have an element of suspicion towards Muslims in general. While it's a suspicion that has tarred millions of peace-loving Muslims, it's a suspicion that has been well-earned by the archaic actions of more than a few.

Fair enough.

If the abovementioned Western countries want to be taken seriously by Muslims they need to apologize and make reparations for their role in the geo-political vandalism that's resulted in the virulent reaction known as Islamism. It should go without saying that the West also has to, you know, stop committing it

Until this happens the world situation will continue to spiral out of control and hundreds of millions, billions and maybe even everybody, will die.

Edited January 20, 2015 by eyeball

Wilber · January 20, 2015

Fair enough.

If the abovementioned Western countries want to be taken seriously by Muslims they need to apologize and make reparations for their role in the geo-political vandalism that's resulted in the virulent reaction known as Islamism. It should go without saying that the West also has to, you know, stop committing it

Until this happens the world situation will continue to spiral out of control and hundreds of millions, billions and maybe even everybody, will die.

You conveniently ignore the fact that by far the greatest number of victims of Muslim fudamentalism are other Muslims. This is not a question of faith, it's about power. The power to impose their will over others, Muslim and non Muslim, by people who's only response to resistance or dissent is to kill.

Yes things could be done by both sides to improve relations between Muslims and non Muslims but your belief that the proponents of this kind of violent fundamentalism can be dealt with reasonably is delusional.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Wilber

bush_cheney2004 · January 20, 2015

....Until this happens the world situation will continue to spiral out of control and hundreds of millions, billions and maybe even everybody, will die.

LOL! That's what all the doomsayers said about the Cold War too...they were wrong.

Thanks for kicking off my work week with a great laugh. Allah Akbar !!

GostHacked · January 20, 2015

As you know, I don't phrase issues or provide responses using the words "right" or "wrong".

I do not claim to be an authority on morality/ I have repeatedly challenged those referring to parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as one being right and the other wrong, you know that.

To answer your question, for me I have a problem with ANYONE of any belief system who believes it is acceptable to engage violence or terrorist acts.

If you are asking me whether I have problems with the Muslims I might have problems with how they interpret their religion if they express certinl conservative or fundamentalist interpretations the same way I have problems with Christians, Muslims or anyone else with such interpretations.

So for example, I have a problem with ANYONE who believes their religion tells them people of another faith are infidel. Yah I have a big problem with that.

I don't like being referred to as dhimmi, khafir, infidel, or many other such designations in the Koran simply because I am a Jew. Don't like it at all.

I am no one's inferior or infidel.

I also have problems that tell me my thoughts are cancerous because I believe I have the right to express my identity through a state collective.

I also have a problem when someone makes allegations but won't provide specifics of those allegations or makes conclusions but won't provide the basis for their conclusons.

Clear enough?

No, actually you've made it more confusing because my response of 'Anything wrong with being an atheist/non-beleiver?' is a reply to what you posted of.

Either that or you engage in Zionist acrobatics. I mean take your pick either way you are a non believer.

Big Guy · January 20, 2015

Just an aside - I personally do not use a parse method to respond to a post because I do not feel that breaking up a presentation into its smaller parts to suit my criticism is a fair way to evaluate an idea. A person shapes their presentation so that the totality of their post expresses the point of view. To parse a presentation then allows you to take statements out of context. The process itself leads to confusion when a person parses an already parsed response. It can become ludicrous when someone parses a parsed response of a parsed response - ending with a whole lot of disjointed statements separated by other disjointed statements. The process really takes away from a serious discussion of the original point of the dissertation.

Back on topic - there are a number of criticisms of the Charlie approach from non-Muslims and other publications. I suspect that what someone sees as satire is seen by others as hate material.

-1=e^ipi · January 20, 2015

Just an aside - I personally do not use a parse method to respond to a post because I do not feel that breaking up a presentation into its smaller parts to suit my criticism is a fair way to evaluate an idea. A person shapes their presentation so that the totality of their post expresses the point of view. To parse a presentation then allows you to take statements out of context. The process itself leads to confusion when a person parses an already parsed response. It can become ludicrous when someone parses a parsed response of a parsed response - ending with a whole lot of disjointed statements separated by other disjointed statements. The process really takes away from a serious discussion of the original point of the dissertation.

Yes... how dare people try to break things up into syllogisms! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism

Much better to just respond with how the overall message of a post makes us 'feel'. *sarcasm*

If someone is misrepresenting you, just respond and point out that they are misrepresenting you.

raqqoon · January 20, 2015

That IS supporting it.

LoL No, obseverving and stating the obvious consequences observed IS NOT supporting it, get real.

So you're all for free speech except when someone else doesn't like what's being said. Guess what, if the only free speech you get is what doesn't offend others, then you got no free speech.

So you actually DON'T support free speech.

Well, lets put it this way and stictly as an example: If a person gets a hold of a video of you pleasuring yourself in your bedroom and put it on Youtube-ish site with quirky & degrading remarks, I think you'll be the first one at the barricades and even will want to get a hold of that person. Most anybody would.

You see its EASY to say that free-speech should include defamtory and offending remarks, if not its not considered free-speech and that WHEN you are not the one offended. But when your turn comes up, its suddenly a different tune.

Edited January 20, 2015 by raqqoon

Wilber · January 20, 2015

If the prophet is offended let the prophet respond, not people who think they have a license to kill because they pretend to speak for someone who died 1400 years ago

bush_cheney2004 · January 20, 2015

....You see its EASY to say that free-speech should include defamtory and offending remarks, if not its not considered free-speech and that WHEN you are not the one offended. But when your turn comes up, its suddenly a different tune.

No, free speech certainly includes protections for such remarks. Libel and slander are matters of civil law and responsibility/culpability for false statements. Free speech concepts did not change when YouTube was born.

eyeball · January 20, 2015

You conveniently ignore the fact that by far the greatest number of victims of Muslim fudamentalism are other Muslims. This is not a question of faith, it's about power. The power to impose their will over others, Muslim and non Muslim, by people who's only response to resistance or dissent is to kill.

I'm well aware that this is and will continue to kill far far more Muslims than westerners.

Yes things could be done by both sides to improve relations between Muslims and non Muslims but your belief that the proponents of this kind of violent fundamentalism can be dealt with reasonably is delusional.

I never said that, I focused on what the west must do about it's role in helping creating the violent fundamentalism. I have little expectation the west will do anything though. I expect violent fundamentalism will continue growing in reaction and claim millions upon millions of lives before this is over. You just don't get that the fire we've helped sstart will take generations to burn itself out do you?

Wilber · January 20, 2015

I'm well aware that this is and will continue to kill far far more Muslims than westerners.

I never said that, I focused on what the west must do about it's role in helping creating the violent fundamentalism. I have little expectation the west will do anything though. I expect violent fundamentalism will continue growing in reaction and claim millions upon millions of lives before this is over. You just don't get that the fire we've helped sstart will take generations to burn itself out do you?

That's where you have it wrong, we didn't create the present violent fundementalism any more than, Jews, Muslims and Protestants created the Inquisition. This is much more about power than relgion.

eyeball · January 20, 2015

Of course it's about power AND the manner by which the west has pursued it. And that's what you keep ignoring.

I can see now the word create has got you all in a twitter. Of course we didn't create violent fundamentalism out of thin air - every religion has the potential for that. What we have definitely created however are the conditions it needs to flourish, by pursuing power the way we have.

bush_cheney2004 · January 20, 2015

.....What we have definitely created however are the conditions it needs to flourish, by pursuing power the way we have.

So when do First Nations, American Indians, and Mexicans begin their "fundamentalism" ? English, Spanish, and French are not native languages, they are the languages of historical power.

Wilber · January 20, 2015

Of course it's about power AND the manner by which the west has pursued it. And that's what you keep ignoring.

I can see now the word create has got you all in a twitter. Of course we didn't create violent fundamentalism out of thin air - every religion has the potential for that. What we have definitely created however are the conditions it needs to flourish, by pursuing power the way we have.

Sorry but you will have to wallow in your own guilt. Everyone makes their own choices, including those who use religion to advance their interests and justify whatever acts it takes to do so.

eyeball · January 20, 2015

Everyone makes their own choices, including those who use religion to advance their interests and justify whatever acts it takes to do so.

True, but do you honestly think that advanced fully developed modern democracies that used economics and geo-politics to justify what they did really can be justified, or ignored and minimized to the extent that it is? That takes a special kind of fundamentalism that borders on fanatical IMO.

Sorry but you will have to wallow in your own guilt.

Actually it's more like resentment.

Edited January 20, 2015 by eyeball

-1=e^ipi · January 20, 2015

Well, lets put it this way and stictly as an example: If a person gets a hold of a video of you pleasuring yourself in your bedroom and put it on Youtube-ish site with quirky & degrading remarks, I think you'll be the first one at the barricades and even will want to get a hold of that person. Most anybody would.

How did this 'video' get obtained in the first place? This sounds more like an invasion of privacy or tresspassing than anything to do with free speech.

You see its EASY to say that free-speech should include defamtory and offending remarks, if not its not considered free-speech and that WHEN you are not the one offended. But when your turn comes up, its suddenly a different tune.

I don't get offended. If you think otherwise, prove it. I challenge you to say something or post a picture that will 'offend' me.

Edited January 20, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

Argus · January 20, 2015

You see its EASY to say that free-speech should include defamtory and offending remarks, if not its not considered free-speech and that WHEN you are not the one offended. But when your turn comes up, its suddenly a different tune.

I suppose it would be easy to say that but I never said that. Defamation is illegal in any number of countries for very good reason.

But you can't defame a guy who's been dead for fourteen hundred years. Or I suppose you can, but he's not gonna care. It certainly isn't going to cause him any sort of embarrassment or hardship.

Individuals or institutions who are defamed or libeled or slandered have legal remedies. THINGS do not have such remedies. And a religion is a thing, not a person.

msj · January 21, 2015

And a religion is a thing, not a person.

Religion is just a collection of ideas shared by a large amount of people.

Ideas should be subject to criticism, satire, and questioning rather than coddled as if they are fragile things.

dre · January 21, 2015

Religion is just a collection of ideas shared by a large amount of people.

Ideas should be subject to criticism, satire, and questioning rather than coddled as if they are fragile things.

Sure but two fairly large segments of the worlds population are at odds right now and engaged in the mass murder of each other. Sure we have the right to insult each other, but its likely to escalate that conflict and get a bunch of people killed. I'd personally rather there wasn't so many people trying to fan the flames.

Bonam · January 21, 2015

Sure but two fairly large segments of the worlds population are at odds right now and engaged in the mass murder of each other.

Oh?

Wilber · January 21, 2015

LoL No, obseverving and stating the obvious consequences observed IS NOT supporting it, get real.

Well, lets put it this way and stictly as an example: If a person gets a hold of a video of you pleasuring yourself in your bedroom and put it on Youtube-ish site with quirky & degrading remarks, I think you'll be the first one at the barricades and even will want to get a hold of that person. Most anybody would.

More like someone drawing a pornographic picture of a woman and adding a caption that said it was your great, great, great, great, great, grandmother ×2, even though there were no surviving pictures of that grandmother, just descriptions in books by people who might have met her. Edited January 21, 2015 by Wilber

dre · January 21, 2015

Oh?

Yeah, westerners and middle eastern muslims arent too fond of each other in case you havent noticed, and this has allowed militant minded people on both sides to start a lot of shit. Probably about 1 million dead in the last decade alone.