Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 2:06:19 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it.
Comes election time - guess what....
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 2:07:14 GMT -5
I'm sure there are highly educated Muslims, but large numbers of children are not in school or in radicalisation schools. I'm genuinely interested in suggestions for how the West could help the Islamic world going forward. Treat them like fellow human beings. Will you be advising governments? If they act like responsible 21st century civilised human beings I'm sure it would help. Sure.....I'll be advising governments if they want me to.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 2:10:10 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... Let me guess......the same as what happened in many other Christian majority countries that are now Muslim majority countries.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 2:40:30 GMT -5
To be clear, I'm not in favour of laws that limit expression. I also don't like "human rights" councils and the like. There you go again. You believe in free speech, but you don't care for the very organization that is committed to protecting it. So satire is out? You're late. That was lost generations ago. Yes - that's what I meant. e.g. People who claim to believe in free speech and then want to regulate it for sensitivity, or political correctness. I don't remember you being this sensitive to Muslim concerns. Yes, you're allowed to keep quiet yourself. But free speech means you don't get to legislate other's manners. Short of that, one has to live with the principle and consequences of free speech. But you will defend him only if he doesn't offend you? But who committed the crime? Not Charlie Hebdo. Civilized societies have civilized means of dealing with people who have wronged them, and it doesn't involve massacring people who look at them the wrong way. You should read the jokes Charlie Hebdo has made about everyone else -- and they all took it for what it is -- satire. It's not mandatory reading anyway. I don't like lesbian porn either, but I'm not going to throw a fit because someone else wants it. It is okay. You just said it. But I still have the freedom to disagree with you -- and you're interpreting that as though someone is telling you not to do it. If you are upset with this conversation, no wonder you can't handle satire. It is okay for the Globe and Mail to reprint Charlie Hebdo's contents -- with permission. It's copyrighted stuff. But newspapers aren't in the habit of presenting evidence anyway. Newspapers couldn't be taken as serious news reporters if they begin delving into satire. That would be like putting dirty pictures in high school textbooks. There's an appropriate time and place for everything. No one asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo. You're free to write to the editor of the Globe and Mail and tell them exactly what you think about Charlie Hebdo. Just don't say they threatened anyone, because they may want to sue you for that. Now you don't mind having Mein Kampf in print. I'm relieved -- I have a copy. Mein Kampf in was never intended to be a joke, and it was a serious outline of the violence Hitler was advocating. Far far worse that Charlie Hebdo, if you were Jewish in Germany in 1940. There's only one reason to want Charlie Hebdo shut down -- we're afraid they will prompt some idiot to shoot US. Have you checked the number of people who have been shot dead in public places in the US in the last week? The nuts will always be with us, and unfortunately Hitler was the guy who had the answer to that little problem.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 2:48:07 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... Scares you, doesn't it? Remember when the Catholics were the ones doing that?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 2:48:31 GMT -5
Treat them like fellow human beings. Will you be advising governments? If they act like responsible 21st century civilised human beings I'm sure it would help. Sure.....I'll be advising governments if they want me to.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 2:49:08 GMT -5
Treat them like fellow human beings. Will you be advising governments? If they act like responsible 21st century civilised human beings I'm sure it would help. Sure.....I'll be advising governments if they want me to. I'll get you some addresses.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 2:50:42 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... Let me guess......the same as what happened in many other Christian majority countries that are now Muslim majority countries. I thought for a second you were going to say about what happened in Spain when they went about getting rid of the Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 2:56:21 GMT -5
Let me guess......the same as what happened in many other Christian majority countries that are now Muslim majority countries. I thought for a second you were going to say about what happened in Spain when they went about getting rid of the Muslims. And Jews. Interestingly, Jewish refugees from Catholic Spain were welcomed to Muslim Turkey. Too bad that Muslim hospitality has deteriorated since then.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jan 19, 2015 3:02:16 GMT -5
I thought for a second you were going to say about what happened in Spain when they went about getting rid of the Muslims. And Jews. Interestingly, Jewish refugees from Catholic Spain were welcomed to Muslim Turkey. Too bad that Muslim hospitality has deteriorated since then. I know why you don't like human rights advocates.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 19, 2015 3:14:24 GMT -5
I suspect the main reason the media would not publish something that would otherwise be newsworthy, would be the impact on their bottom line. #3. Not sure how else to say that one. You can't please everyone. Consider; what's sacaret to one, may offend another. I don't understand the point, but maybe other people do. But as far as "what's sacred to one, may offend another". Not really. It's not an individual matter. Unless you've been living under a rock, you should know that Muslims are offended by pictures or portraits of Mohammed. Some things cause offense. Similarly there are depictions of Jesus Christ that would be considered offensive to Christians. I'm not in favour of preventing people from being offensive. I just find it unfortunate that many people do not seem to care if they do cause offence. 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. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jan 19, 2015 4:02:15 GMT -5
What if I happen to be one of the readers?
Why can't I see "images of Mohammed, or images of Jesus" just because some of the readers, perhaps even the majority, might consider them "sacrilegious?"
It is often, in fact the reason, that satire helps us see just how stupid & ridiculous some of the follies & abuses of some ideas really are!
First of all, seeing an image of Mohammed does not add to the newsworthiness of any story in the paper, and if it offends the sensibilities of a large number of readers, then it's just being respectful. I'm probably old fashioned in that respect but that's how I think we should treat each other in a multicultural society. I'll provide a similar example. A few years ago our local paper printed photos of family grieving at an accident site with a fatality. It was felt by many of the readers that this was an intrusion on the family's privacy. The paper printed an apology and made it a policy to not print such pictures in the future. There is a balance between newsworthiness and people's expectations or feelings. I do think feelings should be considered though. We are not talking about "photos of family grieving at an accident site with a fatality" in a news story, we are talking about satire.
Now this is rather "old fashioned."
1867 edition of Punch, a ground-breaking British magazine of popular humour, including a great deal of satire of the contemporary, social, and political scene?"
Or maybe,
The City Dionysia and the Lenaia were celebrated in honour of Dionysus, the god of wine and ecstasy.
Old Comedy can be understood as a celebration of the exuberant sense of release inherent in his worship It was more interested in finding targets for satire than in any kind of advocacy
Early Greek satire.
Note that this was about the worship of a god.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jan 19, 2015 4:56:13 GMT -5
Why is religion out of bounds when it comes to freedom of expression? There is a lot of stuff out there that is offensive to many different groups. But you don't see them coming in and killing because of it. If freedom of speech and expression is being restricted only for certain religions is this right? What makes their beliefs, feelings etc. any more important than all the other groups that have been offended? I think we set a dangerous precedent if we make certain groups special. I would personally prefer that there was nothing offensive said and expressed about any group, but that isn't the case, so I don't see that some groups should be exempt. Religion needs to be open to criticism and questioning just like anything else. I would prefer it not be offensive material and done respectfully, but special privileges for religions doesn't seem right either. So you would be fine if someone posted something offensive and insulting about African Americans? Suddenly it is ok to be racist, sexist, abusing others, homophobic, and insult others relgion if I call it free speech.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 19, 2015 11:24:29 GMT -5
Why is religion out of bounds when it comes to freedom of expression? There is a lot of stuff out there that is offensive to many different groups. But you don't see them coming in and killing because of it. If freedom of speech and expression is being restricted only for certain religions is this right? What makes their beliefs, feelings etc. any more important than all the other groups that have been offended? I think we set a dangerous precedent if we make certain groups special. I would personally prefer that there was nothing offensive said and expressed about any group, but that isn't the case, so I don't see that some groups should be exempt. Religion needs to be open to criticism and questioning just like anything else. I would prefer it not be offensive material and done respectfully, but special privileges for religions doesn't seem right either. So you would be fine if someone posted something offensive and insulting about African Americans? Suddenly it is ok to be racist, sexist, abusing others, homophobic, and insult others relgion if I call it free speech. Suddenly it is ok to be racist, sexist, abusing others, homophobic, and insult others relgion if I call it free speech religion. This is part of the problem. I think we are all just trying to figure it out.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 19, 2015 11:43:28 GMT -5
So you would be fine if someone posted something offensive and insulting about African Americans? Suddenly it is ok to be racist, sexist, abusing others, homophobic, and insult others relgion if I call it free speech. Sounds like you are mixing political correctness with free speech. The question isn't whether it is OK to be these things but whether you have the right to voice your opinions. An atheist might voice the opinion that people who believe in a paranormal being are delusional. Regulating freedom of expression means the elimination of free speech.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 11:49:44 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... So what ... some of our best politicians here are Muslims. www.calgarymayor.ca/
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 11:51:00 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... 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.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 11:58:46 GMT -5
To be clear, I'm not in favour of laws that limit expression. I also don't like "human rights" councils and the like. There you go again. You believe in free speech, but you don't care for the very organization that is committed to protecting it. HRCs work against free speechSo satire is out? How does that follow? Are you fully awake, Bob? You're late. That was lost generations ago. Yes - that's what I meant. e.g. People who claim to believe in free speech and then want to regulate it for sensitivity, or political correctness. I don't remember you being this sensitive to Muslim concerns. Yes, you're allowed to keep quiet yourself. But free speech means you don't get to legislate other's manners. Short of that, one has to live with the principle and consequences of free speech. But you will defend him only if he doesn't offend you? But who committed the crime? Not Charlie Hebdo. Civilized societies have civilized means of dealing with people who have wronged them, and it doesn't involve massacring people who look at them the wrong way. You should read the jokes Charlie Hebdo has made about everyone else -- and they all took it for what it is -- satire. It's not mandatory reading anyway. I don't like lesbian porn either, but I'm not going to throw a fit because someone else wants it. It is okay. You just said it. But I still have the freedom to disagree with you -- and you're interpreting that as though someone is telling you not to do it. If you are upset with this conversation, no wonder you can't handle satire. It is okay for the Globe and Mail to reprint Charlie Hebdo's contents -- with permission. It's copyrighted stuff. But newspapers aren't in the habit of presenting evidence anyway. Newspapers couldn't be taken as serious news reporters if they begin delving into satire. That would be like putting dirty pictures in high school textbooks. There's an appropriate time and place for everything. No one asked you to endorse Charlie Hebdo. You're free to write to the editor of the Globe and Mail and tell them exactly what you think about Charlie Hebdo. Just don't say they threatened anyone, because they may want to sue you for that.Now you don't mind having Mein Kampf in print. I'm relieved -- I have a copy. Mein Kampf in was never intended to be a joke, and it was a serious outline of the violence Hitler was advocating. Far far worse that Charlie Hebdo, if you were Jewish in Germany in 1940. There's only one reason to want Charlie Hebdo shut down -- we're afraid they will prompt some idiot to shoot US. Have you checked the number of people who have been shot dead in public places in the US in the last week? The nuts will always be with us, and unfortunately Hitler was the guy who had the answer to that little problem. Other than the bolded comment, you have said nothing here that I disagree with. Where did I say I wanted Charlie Hebdo shut down? I'm fine with Charlie Hebdo existing. I don't want it shut down. I don't want Human Rights Councils that tell people what they can and cannot say. I'm in favour of liberal free speech laws. You are projecting views I don't have. I have only one issue with your comments, which I bolded above. My problem is that I AM being asked to endorse Charlie Hebdo. "Je suis Charlie" ... what do you think that means? Well, I am NOT Charlie. And yes, people are NOT okay with me saying that. My other objections I won't repeat.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 19, 2015 12:06:28 GMT -5
Ten girls in a class, nine Christians, one Muslim. Those nine Christian girls have five girls between them, the Muslim has five girls. This second generation class has five Christian, five Muslim girls in it. Each of those Muslim girls has five girls and the five Christian girls have five girls between them. Third generation has five Christian and twenty five Muslim girls in it. Comes election time - guess what.... So what ... some of our best politicians here are Muslims. www.calgarymayor.ca/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.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 12:23:45 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. There is a movie called Idiocracy based on the premise that the unintelligent are having lots of children, while intelligent people are not. The result is a wickedly funny dystopia some centuries hence.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 12:28:52 GMT -5
I don't understand the point, but maybe other people do. But as far as "what's sacred to one, may offend another". Not really. It's not an individual matter. Unless you've been living under a rock, you should know that Muslims are offended by pictures or portraits of Mohammed. Some things cause offense. Similarly there are depictions of Jesus Christ that would be considered offensive to Christians. I'm not in favour of preventing people from being offensive. I just find it unfortunate that many people do not seem to care if they do cause offence. 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.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jan 19, 2015 12:36:10 GMT -5
So you would be fine if someone posted something offensive and insulting about African Americans? Suddenly it is ok to be racist, sexist, abusing others, homophobic, and insult others relgion if I call it free speech. Sounds like you are mixing political correctness with free speech. The question isn't whether it is OK to be these things but whether you have the right to voice your opinions. An atheist might voice the opinion that people who believe in a paranormal being are delusional. Regulating freedom of expression means the elimination of free speech. The last statement is plainly wrong. You can self-regulate what you say and express. Legislatures regulate according to rules of decorum and respect. Schools have standards for what their students say on school property. Churches allow only certain kinds of mutually supportive speech and worship practices. The broadcast code (at least, in Canada) does not allow homophobic or racial slurs. 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 12:40:41 GMT -5
I'm beginning to think this act has started a domino effect. I wonder where it will end and if we will have learned anything. An eye for an eye makes the whole village blind. Yeh, and in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 19, 2015 12:46:31 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 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.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 19, 2015 12:51:55 GMT -5
An eye for an eye makes the whole village blind. Yeh, and in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. The bible got this one right Matthew 15:14 “If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Jan 19, 2015 13:12:42 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?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jan 19, 2015 13:27:19 GMT -5
Why is religion out of bounds when it comes to freedom of expression? There is a lot of stuff out there that is offensive to many different groups. But you don't see them coming in and killing because of it. If freedom of speech and expression is being restricted only for certain religions is this right? What makes their beliefs, feelings etc. any more important than all the other groups that have been offended? I think we set a dangerous precedent if we make certain groups special. I would personally prefer that there was nothing offensive said and expressed about any group, but that isn't the case, so I don't see that some groups should be exempt. Religion needs to be open to criticism and questioning just like anything else. I would prefer it not be offensive material and done respectfully, but special privileges for religions doesn't seem right either. So you would be fine if someone posted something offensive and insulting about African Americans? Suddenly it is ok to be racist, sexist, abusing others, homophobic, and insult others relgion if I call it free speech. Mary you don't seem to understand the idea of what satire is. That particular magazine 'offends' all groups. It isn't mandatory to subscribe to it. If you don't like it don't read it. All groups are fair game so yes that would also include African Americans, African Canadians, African ____ you fill in the blank for the country. 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. I don't have a problem with the Globe and Mail not printing the pictures. That is also a freedom of rights being exercised by them. Christians and Muslims spout some pretty horrific stuff about homosexuals all the time and don't think anything of it. Many are against Muslims and don't think much about what they say about them either. Telling people publicly that they are going to hell because they don't worship your version of God is also offensive. Happens all the time. I would rather not hear it, but I support your freedom to be able to say it. That's what I support. The freedom.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 19, 2015 13:35:13 GMT -5
Absolutely no limits whatsoever? Degrading cartoons of women, or any minority gender or whatever, no problem, just satire? Alvin
|
|