|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 13:36:37 GMT -5
Let me guess......the same as what happened in many other Christian majority countries that are now Muslim majority countries. Just curious which countries you're thinking of. I know a couple in Africa have flipped from one to the other. I was thinking more of the Byzantine empire and what is now Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Albania, Kosovo, Iraq, etc.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 13:37:44 GMT -5
If you search in youtube "penn & teller right to not be offended" the result may better explain the idea. Warning due to strong language you may be offended. ;-) Oh I suddenly got it and I didn't see the clip. You're saying ... no one has the right to build walls inhibiting others from accessing whatever they want, in order to prevent themselves from being offended. Yeah, I agree, with some minor exceptions ... All I'm saying is that we DO have the right to BE offended. Many are claiming now that the Muslims have NO such right. They should NOT be offended by Charlie Hebdo. I think there isn't much hope that someone won't be offended at some time in their lives. What makes the difference is how we handle being offended. Most Muslims are able to see there is a fine line between being offended and killing the offender. We do have the right to be offended. We also have the right to not be offended when others think we should be.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 13:37:53 GMT -5
How does that follow? Are you fully awake, Bob? Yes, I'm fully awake. And I'm telling you that satire is impolite and offensive -- to someone. Otherwise it isn't satire, it's just that simple. So by your expectation of political correct, you don't approve of Charlie Hebdo. You also said you don't like it and won't read it. I didn't assume anything you didn't say. You disagree with this. Then tell me who asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo -- certainly not me. What makes you think the Globe and Mail doesn't accept letters to the editor? If they don't like yours, write to some other newspaper. What's wrong with your exercise of free speech? You don't have that freedom if you don't practice it. But the question always is, do you have the courage to say what you believe. And my advice still is, just don't threaten anyone ... I don't think you're the type anyway. Then what's your beef? Would it be better if they changed to a new paper/magazine genre? Human Rights Councils have no power to tell people what they can and cannot say. Only governments can do that. What you don't like is human rights councils that infringe on your areas of disapproval. You're chasing your tail again. Human rights and civil liberties activists are the guardians of "liberal". Ask any conservative. No. I'm telling you that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have free speech and political correctness. The only real purpose of political correctness is salesmanship, anyway. Who the heck asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo? What do you think endorse means? You don't even read it, how can you possibly endorse it? No one said you were Charlie. No one is Charlie until they begin telling people they are Charlie. Who thinks they are expected to identify with every placard carrying demonstrator? You can't be that insecure -- they don't even know you. The part I'm not okay with is that it a lie that you are being asked to endorse Charlie Hebdo. You're a free man -- if someone is harassing you about your freedom, sue them. Otherwise, you have to learn how to live with other people's freedom of speech. You're not a Nazi, are you?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 13:42:13 GMT -5
I didn't say I liked it, but I certainly support the right to the freedom of speech, yes. I don't have to like something in order to see the relevance and the need for it to be protected. Freedom of expression and speech is something we don't want to mess with. That's the point. Charlie Hebdo was heading for bankruptcy because it was only printing 60,000 copies a week. The latest issue is printing 7,000,000 copies because people are supporting Charlie's right to freedom of expression.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 13:45:34 GMT -5
If you search in youtube "penn & teller right to not be offended" the result may better explain the idea. Warning due to strong language you may be offended. ;-) Oh I suddenly got it and I didn't see the clip. You're saying ... no one has the right to build walls inhibiting others from accessing whatever they want, in order to prevent themselves from being offended. Yeah, I agree, with some minor exceptions ... All I'm saying is that we DO have the right to BE offended. Many are claiming now that the Muslims have NO such right. They should NOT be offended by Charlie Hebdo. Your dichotomy is that you give Muslims the freedom to be offended, but you don't think it's appropriate for anyone to offend them. You're sounding like an American who believes in their right to be offended, but can't stand it when some black people make fun of them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 14:11:01 GMT -5
You can self-regulate what you say and express. Of course. And everyone should. But your self-regulation applies only to you, and it's wise to accept that it works the same way for others. And it applies only to government institutions, not the press.] They're minors. However, the standards do not limit their freedom of speech, unless it's in a private institution. There is legal precedence for this. Churches are private institutions. In order to prevent cursing on the sidewalks outside the Mormon temple in Salt Lake, they church wanted to purchase the street from the city so they could prevent the practice that freedom of speech there. Of course not. Public airwaves are government jurisdiction. Closed circuit broadcasters can say and show anything they want. If you felt the need to tell them for some reason, would you do it? It's legal. Of course, you're on their private property. But they can't sue you. You don't let people curse in your house, do you? As with Charlie Hebdo. Who NEEDS more freedom than this? I think you're misled about the meaning and purpose of freedom of expression. It's purpose is to guarantee that government cannot suppress the free exchange of information and ideas. It is not intended to interfere with one's private lives or private places. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 14:18:08 GMT -5
I was one of the many non-Muslims who voted for him. I'm not sure that shifting population demographics had much to do with his election/re-election. He is Ismaili, a truly remarkable group of human beings. Shifting population demographics had nothing to do with his election, agreed. My point is that shifting population demographics is nothing to fear, and Nenshi is an example why. In fact, the suggestion of it is par-for-the-course racist fear mongering. Nenshi is Ismaili, not mainstream Muslim. Are Ismaili's likely to become a majority in Canada?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 14:18:25 GMT -5
There are any number of regulatory practices and customs which regulate what we can say and do. None of these practice eliminate 'free speech'. For example, I would not dream of giving an anti-Trinity testimony in a Trinitarian church. They would have the right to boot me for being disorderly if I did such a thing. But I CAN voice those opinions on this forum, in a book, in various modes, and the State will support my right to do this. 'Free speech' doesn't give me carte blanche to say whatever, wherever. So you are Charlie after all. Just as you CAN voice your opinions in a book, so Charlie CAN voice opinions in the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Charlie doesn't force Muslims worldwide to buy the magazine, in the same way that you don't force Trinitarians to read your opinions on TMB. What Charlie publishes for customers in Paris is no reason for religious crazies in Niger to set fire to churches and murder ten people including policemen who had nothing to do with Charlie. This post has made me a personal enemy of Ramzan Kadyrov. How juvenile is that? People have to separate what people "express" from what they actually do. Kadyrov is an uncivilized crazy.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 14:19:51 GMT -5
Are Ismaili's likely to become a majority in Canada? Yeah -- like Buddhists have become the majority in the US.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 14:22:41 GMT -5
I didn't say I liked it, but I certainly support the right to the freedom of speech, yes. I don't have to like something in order to see the relevance and the need for it to be protected. Freedom of expression and speech is something we don't want to mess with. That's the point. Charlie Hebdo was heading for bankruptcy because it was only printing 60,000 copies a week. The latest issue is printing 7,000,000 copies because people are supporting Charlie's right to freedom of expression. There's nothing like a rampage of crazed idiots to remind us how democracies ought to behave.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 14:26:09 GMT -5
Just curious which countries you're thinking of. I know a couple in Africa have flipped from one to the other. I was thinking more of the Byzantine empire and what is now Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Albania, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. Don't forget Ukraine, Israel, Russia. In Ukraine you find steeples topped with a cross sitting atop the crescent moon.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 14:49:01 GMT -5
I was one of the many non-Muslims who voted for him. I'm not sure that shifting population demographics had much to do with his election/re-election. He is Ismaili, a truly remarkable group of human beings. Islamic clerics reject Ismailis...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 14:51:48 GMT -5
Oh I suddenly got it and I didn't see the clip. You're saying ... no one has the right to build walls inhibiting others from accessing whatever they want, in order to prevent themselves from being offended. Yeah, I agree, with some minor exceptions ... All I'm saying is that we DO have the right to BE offended. Many are claiming now that the Muslims have NO such right. They should NOT be offended by Charlie Hebdo. I see being offended does not doesn't come from a "right" but it's your emotional reaction, which is beyond your control. Everyone will be offended sometime by something, it unavoidable. What is offensive to one may not be offensive to another. I'm not talking about individual offence, about which you can do nothing. My concern is with culturally constructed offences. At one time blasphemy and sacrilege were well understood in western countries, and, in fact, there were laws against them. Culturally constructed offences are not individual reactions, but apply across a broad spectrum of people.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 14:54:23 GMT -5
Oh I suddenly got it and I didn't see the clip. You're saying ... no one has the right to build walls inhibiting others from accessing whatever they want, in order to prevent themselves from being offended. Yeah, I agree, with some minor exceptions ... All I'm saying is that we DO have the right to BE offended. Many are claiming now that the Muslims have NO such right. They should NOT be offended by Charlie Hebdo. I think there isn't much hope that someone won't be offended at some time in their lives. What makes the difference is how we handle being offended. Most Muslims are able to see there is a fine line between being offended and killing the offender. We do have the right to be offended. We also have the right to not be offended when others think we should be. Yes, both are true. However, there is a current of thought that people should not be offended, especially Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:02:17 GMT -5
There are any number of regulatory practices and customs which regulate what we can say and do. None of these practice eliminate 'free speech'. For example, I would not dream of giving an anti-Trinity testimony in a Trinitarian church. They would have the right to boot me for being disorderly if I did such a thing. But I CAN voice those opinions on this forum, in a book, in various modes, and the State will support my right to do this. 'Free speech' doesn't give me carte blanche to say whatever, wherever. So you are Charlie after all. Just as you CAN voice your opinions in a book, so Charlie CAN voice opinions in the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Charlie doesn't force Muslims worldwide to buy the magazine, in the same way that you don't force Trinitarians to read your opinions on TMB. What Charlie publishes for customers in Paris is no reason for religious crazies in Niger to set fire to churches and murder ten people including policemen who had nothing to do with Charlie. This post has made me a personal enemy of Ramzan Kadyrov. How juvenile is that? I don't know who Ramzan Kadyrov is. However, of course Charlie can voice opinions, et cetera. How does that make me Charlie after all. I don't think they should do what they do, but they have the right to do it. My neighbour might mow his lawn at 6 AM and I don't like it, but I can't stop it. I can certainly complain about it. What I resent is that people tell me I have to LIKE my neigbour mowing his lawn because it's a free country. I reserve my right to dislike it, and furthermore, consider him rude and inconsiderate. I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo. Please let's not get in to religious crazies over-reaction to Muslim cartoons. You're doing what the rabid free speech defenders are doing, lumping anyone who dislikes offensive behaviour in with "religious crazies".
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 15:06:27 GMT -5
Absolutely no limits whatsoever? Degrading cartoons of women, or any minority gender or whatever, no problem, just satire? Alvin I don't like it personally, but I also can choose not to subscribe to it etc. Mainstream newspapers likely will not get so extreme because they need to please a multicultural audience and will likely moderate what they print in order to keep subscribers. But yes, if it's a magazine that you subscribe to if you like that sort of thing, I think it should be allowed. Sometimes satire is what points out the silliness of some ideas and makes people think and that's how changes happen. Degradation for the sake of degradation is only going to attract a certain group of people. I will step up to protect your right to express yourself in a way I may find offensive.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:11:54 GMT -5
How does that follow? Are you fully awake, Bob? Yes, I'm fully awake. And I'm telling you that satire is impolite and offensive -- to someone. Otherwise it isn't satire, it's just that simple. So by your expectation of political correct, you don't approve of Charlie Hebdo. You also said you don't like it and won't read it. I didn't assume anything you didn't say. You disagree with this. Then tell me who asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo -- certainly not me. What makes you think the Globe and Mail doesn't accept letters to the editor? If they don't like yours, write to some other newspaper. What's wrong with your exercise of free speech? You don't have that freedom if you don't practice it. But the question always is, do you have the courage to say what you believe. And my advice still is, just don't threaten anyone ... I don't think you're the type anyway. Then what's your beef? Would it be better if they changed to a new paper/magazine genre? Human Rights Councils have no power to tell people what they can and cannot say. Only governments can do that. What you don't like is human rights councils that infringe on your areas of disapproval. You're chasing your tail again. Human rights and civil liberties activists are the guardians of "liberal". Ask any conservative. No. I'm telling you that you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have free speech and political correctness. The only real purpose of political correctness is salesmanship, anyway. Who the heck asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo? What do you think endorse means? You don't even read it, how can you possibly endorse it? No one said you were Charlie. No one is Charlie until they begin telling people they are Charlie. Who thinks they are expected to identify with every placard carrying demonstrator? You can't be that insecure -- they don't even know you. The part I'm not okay with is that it a lie that you are being asked to endorse Charlie Hebdo. You're a free man -- if someone is harassing you about your freedom, sue them. Otherwise, you have to learn how to live with other people's freedom of speech. You're not a Nazi, are you? You're going way, way off on a tangent. Because you seemed to have missed it, here are my specific objections to specific attitudes voiced around the Charlie Hebdo incident. I've added some commentary over and above the original post. a) The Globe and Mail (and the BBC, CNN and other media) are being vilified and called cowardly for not re-printing the Hebdo cartoons. To my mind, the large dailies with a readership that is part Muslim can well decide not to print the cartoons. That is their right. Free speech does not mean they have to print anything and everything a specific reader wants. b) Some Christians who are the first to cry wolf about how they are characterised in media have expressed no empathy for the Muslim point of view of not wanting Mohammed pictured. They believe that Muslims should not complain and not be offended. They have a right to be offended, IMO. c) Some atheists express the idea that no religion should be entitled to their feelings about various sacred cows. Why am I concerned about these attitudes? Because they demonstrate insensitivity and result in incivility and bad feelings.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 15:15:42 GMT -5
I didn't say I liked it, but I certainly support the right to the freedom of speech, yes. I don't have to like something in order to see the relevance and the need for it to be protected. Freedom of expression and speech is something we don't want to mess with. That's the point. Charlie Hebdo was heading for bankruptcy because it was only printing 60,000 copies a week. The latest issue is printing 7,000,000 copies because people are supporting Charlie's right to freedom of expression. Which is a good example how the world self regulates itself over time. People were not buying it. All the terrorists did was make it something people became aware of and want to show a solidarity for. If they had left it alone and ignored it like many other people, most of the world wouldn't even know the magazine existed.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 15:20:18 GMT -5
I was one of the many non-Muslims who voted for him. I'm not sure that shifting population demographics had much to do with his election/re-election. He is Ismaili, a truly remarkable group of human beings. Islamic clerics reject Ismailis... And Trinitarian Christians reject 2x2's Mormons and JW's.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:22:24 GMT -5
You can self-regulate what you say and express. Of course. And everyone should. But your self-regulation applies only to you, and it's wise to accept that it works the same way for others. And it applies only to government institutions, not the press.] They're minors. However, the standards do not limit their freedom of speech, unless it's in a private institution. There is legal precedence for this. Churches are private institutions. In order to prevent cursing on the sidewalks outside the Mormon temple in Salt Lake, they church wanted to purchase the street from the city so they could prevent the practice that freedom of speech there. Of course not. Public airwaves are government jurisdiction. Closed circuit broadcasters can say and show anything they want. If you felt the need to tell them for some reason, would you do it? It's legal. Of course, you're on their private property. But they can't sue you. You don't let people curse in your house, do you? As with Charlie Hebdo. Who NEEDS more freedom than this? I think you're misled about the meaning and purpose of freedom of expression. It's purpose is to guarantee that government cannot suppress the free exchange of information and ideas. It is not intended to interfere with one's private lives or private places. [/quote] I have absolutely no idea where you're going with this. Rational made the statement that you can't have freedom of speech if you regulate expression. That is untrue. 'Freedom of speech' is a concept within the domain of law. However, outside the domain of law we regulate expression all the time, and the purpose of my post was to provide examples. You'd be surprised how often people misunderstand this. They feel that 'freedom of speech' gives them carte-blanche to say and do whatever they wish without regard to the consequences. First, they may disregard the performative aspects of speech in causing legal harm, such as libel, racial slurs or bullying. People often think themselves immune from these consequences because of not properly understanding what 'freedom of speech' allows them. Second, people often think that 'freedom of speech' gives them moral immunity from the consequences of what they say. I have one Facebook friend (so-called) who likes to tell people directly or indirectly that they are going to Hell. His attitude is that 'freedom of speech' somehow makes that okay. It is not "okay". He has the right under law to express these ideas, but they are offensive all the same.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 15:23:07 GMT -5
I think there isn't much hope that someone won't be offended at some time in their lives. What makes the difference is how we handle being offended. Most Muslims are able to see there is a fine line between being offended and killing the offender. We do have the right to be offended. We also have the right to not be offended when others think we should be. Yes, both are true. However, there is a current of thought that people should not be offended, especially Muslims. I don't think it's that people feel they shouldn't be offended, at least that isn't how it is for me. For me it's what they did when they felt offended that I disagree with. They can be offended, they have the right to be offended, they may even have a good reason to be offended, but they do not have the right to kill the people who offended them. That's how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2015 15:25:48 GMT -5
Absolutely no limits whatsoever? Degrading cartoons of women, or any minority gender or whatever, no problem, just satire? Alvin I don't like it personally, but I also can choose not to subscribe to it etc. Mainstream newspapers likely will not get so extreme because they need to please a multicultural audience and will likely moderate what they print in order to keep subscribers. But yes, if it's a magazine that you subscribe to if you like that sort of thing, I think it should be allowed. Sometimes satire is what points out the silliness of some ideas and makes people think and that's how changes happen. Degradation for the sake of degradation is only going to attract a certain group of people. I will step up to protect your right to express yourself in a way I may find offensive. I guess I more or less agree, other than there must be a line where it is just simply not acceptable, and where is that line? Child pornography, paraded and twisted somehow as satire is absolutely over the line. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:29:22 GMT -5
Oh I suddenly got it and I didn't see the clip. You're saying ... no one has the right to build walls inhibiting others from accessing whatever they want, in order to prevent themselves from being offended. Yeah, I agree, with some minor exceptions ... All I'm saying is that we DO have the right to BE offended. Many are claiming now that the Muslims have NO such right. They should NOT be offended by Charlie Hebdo. Your dichotomy is that you give Muslims the freedom to be offended, but you don't think it's appropriate for anyone to offend them. It is legal to offend them, but it is not appropriate to offend them. Yes. Why isn't it appropriate? Because a) they said so, and b) it's not difficult, dangerous or onerous to honour the request. Once again, I have little idea what you mean. I'm personally not offended by Mohammed pictures, so why would I be like an American offended by what black people say. And even if I was, how would that be even remotely the same. I'm talking about culturally constructed ideas of sacrilege which exist across an entire culture or religion, not a particular individual's thin skinned sensibility.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 15:33:46 GMT -5
Islamic clerics reject Ismailis... And Trinitarian Christians reject 2x2's Mormons and JW's. Exactly! We would not uphold those groups as representative of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:43:35 GMT -5
I don't like it personally, but I also can choose not to subscribe to it etc. Mainstream newspapers likely will not get so extreme because they need to please a multicultural audience and will likely moderate what they print in order to keep subscribers. But yes, if it's a magazine that you subscribe to if you like that sort of thing, I think it should be allowed. Sometimes satire is what points out the silliness of some ideas and makes people think and that's how changes happen. Degradation for the sake of degradation is only going to attract a certain group of people. I will step up to protect your right to express yourself in a way I may find offensive. I guess I more or less agree, other than there must be a line where it is just simply not acceptable, and where is that line? Child pornography, paraded and twisted somehow as satire is absolutely over the line. Alvin Legal analysis of 'speech acts' considers the performative nature of the speech act. That is, how the speech causes an action. The kinds of speech or expression that are performative include instructions, incitements, commands or vicarious behaviour. Child pornography promotes pedophilia and also victimizes children in its creation. It's quite easy to see that it should be illegal. What about photography or literature that promotes the physical punishment of adult women? What about literature that deprecates an entire race or culture? What about depictions that degrade figures held sacred by some religions? At some point "speech" or "expression" becomes offensive to some groups, and not offensive to others. Here is a thought experiment. If you lived in a society where 80% of the population thought that sexualised pictures of juveniles were permissible, but you were part of a cultural minority (20%) who were offended by such material. Would it be reasonable for the local newspaper to not print such material in deference to your wishes? Should you request your local corner store to not sell such material? Should you protest or voice indignation that such material was readily available?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:45:09 GMT -5
Yes, both are true. However, there is a current of thought that people should not be offended, especially Muslims. I don't think it's that people feel they shouldn't be offended, at least that isn't how it is for me. For me it's what they did when they felt offended that I disagree with. They can be offended, they have the right to be offended, they may even have a good reason to be offended, but they do not have the right to kill the people who offended them. That's how I see it. I think we all agree with the point that they killing people who offend you is way beyond the pale. But many do not think that Muslims should even be offended, or have any right to be offended. From what I have read the last couple of days, 90% of the Muslim world is offended by the recent Charlie cover.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 15:51:37 GMT -5
And Trinitarian Christians reject 2x2's Mormons and JW's. Exactly! We would not uphold those groups as representative of Christianity. Of course we would. A Mormon recently ran for President of the USA, and for all intents and purposes couldn't be distinguished from your garden variety Christian. Dang Mormons are just having too many children. Next thing Utah will be the most populous state, and the Jazz will win the NBA championship. Then where will we be.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 15:56:15 GMT -5
So you are Charlie after all. Just as you CAN voice your opinions in a book, so Charlie CAN voice opinions in the Charlie Hebdo magazine. Charlie doesn't force Muslims worldwide to buy the magazine, in the same way that you don't force Trinitarians to read your opinions on TMB. What Charlie publishes for customers in Paris is no reason for religious crazies in Niger to set fire to churches and murder ten people including policemen who had nothing to do with Charlie. This post has made me a personal enemy of Ramzan Kadyrov. How juvenile is that? I don't know who Ramzan Kadyrov is. However, of course Charlie can voice opinions, et cetera. How does that make me Charlie after all. I don't think they should do what they do, but they have the right to do it. My neighbour might mow his lawn at 6 AM and I don't like it, but I can't stop it. I can certainly complain about it. What I resent is that people tell me I have to LIKE my neigbour mowing his lawn because it's a free country. I reserve my right to dislike it, and furthermore, consider him rude and inconsiderate. I feel the same way about Charlie Hebdo. Please let's not get in to religious crazies over-reaction to Muslim cartoons. You're doing what the rabid free speech defenders are doing, lumping anyone who dislikes offensive behaviour in with "religious crazies". Most of the seven million copies of the latest Charlie Hebdo issue will be sold to people who are showing their support for Charlie's right to freedom of expression, and the right to not be murdered for what they draw or write. If religious people want to avoid seeing the cartoons that's fine. No one is forcing them to buy Charlie Hebdo magazines. Perhaps "I support freedom of expression" would be more palatable to you than "I am Charlie"?
|
|