Here are the cartoons that got 12 innocent people at Charlie Hebdo slaughtered

And who decides what "decency" is?

You? Sarah Palin? John Stewart? ISIS?

You are both full of sh1t and cowards.

Correct

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

publishing the cartoons as a weapon isn't right either - we can all be decent people here. We, normal people, don't have to go out of our way to insult muslims, 99.9% of whom will never touch a weapon.

free speech is a delicate thing - if you use it as a weapon, it can be taken away or used against you. Civil society depends on finding a balance between free speech and decency.

This is exactly right.

No it isn't.

Just because someone is offended by satire of a belief they hold does not mean others should censor themselves so that they don't offend these people.

It is their issue if they can't deal with satire.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with satirizing an idea.

Zvxgs wrote:

And who decides what "decency" is?

you do. since you consider images of muhammad's donk, etc. to not be classified as indecent, what do you actually think is indecent? i wonder if it could be drastically different from what others would find indecent. we may never know

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

publishing the cartoons as a weapon isn't right either - we can all be decent people here. We, normal people, don't have to go out of our way to insult muslims, 99.9% of whom will never touch a weapon.

free speech is a delicate thing - if you use it as a weapon, it can be taken away or used against you. Civil society depends on finding a balance between free speech and decency.

This is exactly right.

Actually no, it really isn't.

As has already been explained this logic was appropriate for any questions of creating or publishing the cartoons at the time of the original publication. It is WAY off the mark at this time which is about making a statement concerning terrorism and its impact on censorship.

deezy & the nuts wrote:

Zvxgs wrote:

And who decides what "decency" is?

you do. since you consider images of muhammad's donk, etc. to not be classified as indecent, what do you actually think is indecent? i wonder if it could be drastically different from what others would find indecent. we may never know

Exactly. You may never know what I find indecent, but I certainly do.

When I come across something indecent, I have a choice to look at it or ignore it. Just like everyone else.

I don't need you, a nut job Christian church or nut job Muslim or anyone else dictating what I think.

Flagpole wrote:

agip wrote:

publishing the cartoons as a weapon isn't right either - we can all be decent people here. We, normal people, don't have to go out of our way to insult muslims, 99.9% of whom will never touch a weapon.

free speech is a delicate thing - if you use it as a weapon, it can be taken away or used against you. Civil society depends on finding a balance between free speech and decency.

This is exactly right.

Most Mohammed cartoons are published just to show how fanatical most Muslims are......not for any personal dislike of Mohammed himself.

SMiLE wrote:

Your example is not analogous.

Using a racial slur to offend a person is not the same as drawing a cartoon that satirizes an idea.

One is about a person, the other is about an idea.

One is about a group of people who were offended, the other is about a group of people who were offended. Both consider the publications to be insults. Reacting with violence in either case is in no way warranted.

No it isn't.

It does not follow that because that imagine offends your delicate sensibilities that therefore, such an image should not be published.

Many would and are.

And their offense at such images is irrelevant as to whether such cartoons should be published.

Your argument that it is wrong because it offends is not a valid argument.

There is nothing wrong with publishing a cartoon that satirizes an idea.

They're supporting the idea that publishing a cartoon that satirizes an idea, even one that may offend someone, should not get the cartoonist / publisher killed.

The obvious answer is because something related to this just happened.

I support people not having their hands cut off, but until people having their hands cut off starts becoming a problem, it is not an issue I'll talk about much.

Yes you do.

Whether the cartoon is offensive or not is irrelevant.

Pacifism benefits the perpetrators of evil.

+1 No need to be afraid of the truth and the facts.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

One is about a group of people who were offended, the other is about a group of people who were offended.

No.

In your example, someone published something that attacks a person.

The cartoonists published something that satires (criticizes) an idea.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Both consider the publications to be insults.

One is offended about something that demeans a person.

The other of offended about something that demeans an idea.

The difference is relevant.

Your argument by analogy fails because the reason why both groups take offense is different. Criticism of ideas is legitimate. Criticism of people of the basis of race is not.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Reacting with violence in either case is in no way warranted.

Correct.

wwwejod wrote:

wejo linking something from huffingtonpost.com??! A strange day indeed, my friends. Hope that doesn't get the brojos disowned.

Exactly. I'm wondering which side he's REALLY on..;)

SMiLE

is it okay or wrong for me to approach a fat person in the street and tell them they're fat?

fit to run wrote:

SMiLE

is it okay or wrong for me to approach a fat person in the street and tell them they're fat?

You asked me this because you think calling a fat person fat is analogous to publishing a cartoon that satirizes islam.

It isn't analogous.

To criticize islam is to criticize an idea.

It isn't criticizing people, it is criticizing ideas.

Do you understand the difference?

fit to run wrote:

SMiLE

is it okay or wrong for me to approach a fat person in the street and tell them they're fat?

Are you really this obtuse?

Do you understand the difference between an idea and a person?

No, i dont think it's the same.

do you think it is wrong or not?

fit to run wrote:

No, i dont think it's the same.

do you think it is wrong or not?

Whether he thinks it's right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

If you don't think it's the same,why would you even ask that question?

SMiLE wrote:

In your example, someone published something that attacks a person.

Not one person. A large group of people.

SMiLE wrote:

The cartoonists published something that satires (criticizes) an idea.

Resulting in an affront that offended a large group of people.

[

SMiLE wrote:

One is offended about something that demeans a person.

The other of offended about something that demeans an idea.

The difference is relevant.

Disagree. The publishers in both cases know that their efforts, however based in satire, will offend groups of people who will see them as attacks on their identity.

SMiLE wrote:

Your argument by analogy fails because the reason why both groups take offense is different. Criticism of ideas is legitimate. Criticism of people of the basis of race is not.

Disagree. The knowledge that both actions will cause great offense is what's key here. What we may or may not find as legitimate means of expression that cause offense is immaterial to the fact that both cases, regardless of our opinions, bring offense to the peoples in question. What I think about their reasons for being offended doesn't change the fact that I know what the end result will be and that my opinion has no basis on how they arrive to their outrage.

But let's make it strictly about religion. If a non-Christian burned and desecrated Christian Bibles and was then killed by a member of a militant Christian faction, would wejo, in the name of free speech, offer to burn and desecrate bibles in protest? I doubt it.

Ok, the word exists (but not in almost any dictionary, but yes, in the specialized language of arguments), but now you are not even using it correctly. Disanalogy is a tactic or method of tearing down the analogical argument (which you attempted but failed to successfully do). You pointed out a relevant (according to you) "difference" (too simple of word for you?) between the things I was comparing, not a "disanalogy". Once again, analogies compare similar things. They are not exactly the same.

You're conflating insulting an individual, or a group of people (your example) with criticizing an idea (the satire of islam drawn by the cartoonists). The difference is relevant.

Yours is not an analogous example.[/quote]

Again, you're wrong. Some of the cartoons in question MAKE FUN OF/CRITICIZE muslims or muhammed. Wait for it: THESE ARE PEOPLE (muslims consider muhammed to be a historical, but holy, person. And as far as they are concerned, insulting Him, is MUCH WORSE than insulting them individually).

Yes, the 2 situations (some of my examples and the current real situation) are not exactly the same. However, the POINT of my analogy (which you seem to have entirely missed in your attempt to impress yourself with your own words and to tell me that I'm wrong) was not whether or not it is right or wrong to publish the cartoons (something you keep focusing on), but whether or not it is smart for the individuals doing so. I was simply pointing out that it might not be worth the stand for those individuals, even if they are entirely right in doing so (which makes it clear that I was not even morally criticizing the people in my examples who agate the crazy people).

Clearly you like to argue and think extremely highly of yourself, but......read more slowly next time before you respond, it will keep you from wasting time and arguing with someone over something they weren't saying.