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

They share the similarity in that both would offend.

I'm trying to establish his moral code, as to what the poster finds offensive and inoffensive.

Offensiveness is relevant to the argument as SMiLE has deemed it so. He believes my, and I assume others, "delicate sensibilities" play not part in his behaviour. I am wondering how far this extends. A gross image to perhaps an offensive truthful statement?

wejo wrote:

This is what was so offensive to the radical Islamic terrorists:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-paris-french-newspaper-shooting_n_6429552.html

I haven't discussed this with Robert but think we should pick one of the cartoons and make it a splash page tomorrow. I'm open to what LRCers think.

Shame on the media outlets that have published pictures of the cartoons with the picture of Mohammed blurred out (NyDaily News, Telegraph, etc)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/some-outlets-are-censoring-charlie-hebdos-satirical-cartoons#.eeaKPMlW3o

Here is a couple of editorials I like on the attack:

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/7/7509265/charlie-hebdo-cartoonshttp://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/former-onion-editor-freedom-speech-cannot-be-killed

Hey Wejo, Huffpost LOL!....Breitbart didn't post these?!?...hhhmmmm...

But in all seriousness, thanks for posting the cartoons. I vote for the splash page, definitely a ballsy move. We may not all agree on politics/religion/AGW/Iraq/Abortion/Jamin/Interracial Marriage/Gay Marriage/Stick/Obamacare/how BUTTHURT T. Rex is/Gun control but at least we don't feel the need to mow down each other with assault rifles when we disagree.

Long live the Trolls! Je suis Charlie!

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.

This is exactly wrong. Freedom of speech is not purchased with decency. It isn't only protected under the condition of not upsetting too many people. Besides, it is a childish notion of decency that you are offering.

"These people can't handle mockery, or shouldn't have to."

This is coddling you'd expect at a schoolhouse or an office workplace. These are the silliest concessions that you are calling for. We're not talking about children.

Some of the most brutal murderers hide under the same umbrella that you want held up for the "99.9%" of muslims, and it does far more for the savages than it does for any of the peaceful moderates. If wejo wants to post the cartoons in solidarity, I think he should go right ahead.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Butthurtosaurus Rexing wrote:

Hilarious. Trex thinks 1 person is writing all the counter post to her stupidity!

I will be the one to address the "Elephant in the Room."

Hey Trex, EVERYONE HATES YOU it isn't just 1 GUY! LOL!!!

Not that an old butt hurt libtard like you would be able to grasp that. Keep living in denial as it is the LIBTARD WAY.

Hey, look who's back from his short break:

The chat-room terrorist!

He tries to HIJACK peoples names!

He COWARDLY ATTACKS others under cloak of ever-changing names!

He tries to BULLY and push others into silence with his constant personal attacks!

And he is clearly some kind of INSANE ZEALOT obsessed with his "enemy! (in this case, me)

(You've learned lot from the Jihadists. Sadly you are an even bigger coward and idiot than they are. )

Not to spoil your argument with mr. troll, but why would you feign victimhood of a terrorist attack in this of all threads?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Hey, look who's back from his short break:

The chat-room terrorist!...

Hey, did you really just write that?!? "terrorist"?!?

Holy smokes dude/dudette, get a grip!

I miss Bill Eamick wrote:

pjb wrote:

This is exactly wrong. Freedom of speech is not purchased with decency. It isn't only protected under the condition of not upsetting too many people. Besides, it is a childish notion of decency that you are offering.

"These people can't handle mockery, or shouldn't have to."

This is coddling you'd expect at a schoolhouse or an office workplace. These are the silliest concessions that you are calling for. We're not talking about children.

Some of the most brutal murderers hide under the same umbrella that you want held up for the "99.9%" of muslims, and it does far more for the savages than it does for any of the peaceful moderates. If wejo wants to post the cartoons in solidarity, I think he should go right ahead.

Well said.

They are not saying that Freedom of speech is purchased with decency. They are saying that the Brothers Jo don't have to lower themselves to using gross indecent images to make a point in arguing that others can.

here, queer, GET USED TO IT.. wrote:

Really Dude wrote:

Hey, did you really just write that?!? "terrorist"?!?

Holy smokes dude/dudette, get a grip!

So in the thread about those stupid insane muslims being mortally offended about cartoons (depicting their prophet as a terrorist), people are getting shocked and offended about a comment about "chat room terrorism" !! "it's beyond the pale!"

Nice. thanks for the laugh.

+100000000 ;-)

Well, that's one perspective, albeit somewhat narrow, and more than likely completely uninformed.Here's another on who these folks were.http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/07/je-suis-charlie-no-youre-not-or-else-you

Pringles wrote:

They are a bunch of cartoons by immature men who thought they were on a crusade of higher journalism. Get over themselves. Google search some of the images besides the cover posted by wejo. They're f-king offensive. Very offensive. The one with Muhammad being bent over with his posterior in the air like some porn actress. Did they f-king think this was going to sit well with Muslims? What value did this have? They just embarrassed themselves. These people are not journalists. They were basically doing this for shits and giggles which I find patently offensive.

fit to run wrote:

I miss Bill Eamick wrote:

Well said.

They are not saying that Freedom of speech is purchased with decency. They are saying that the Brothers Jo don't have to lower themselves to using gross indecent images to make a point in arguing that others can.

I think you should reread agip's post. It contains a clear warning that "free speech is delicate" and that it requires a balance with decency. I take this as his suggesting foul consequences otherwise. There are also consequences associated with "decency". Our unwillingness to offend also can be (and is being) used against us. What you're calling decency is overrated.

And the Brothers Jo would not be lowering themselves to post images in solidarity with the murdered cartoonists.

This thread has to be a joke. The brojos are talking about censorship yet all the threads about Kobe Klanker get deleted.

No, a disanalogy is a lack of an analogy or a relevant failure of an analogy.

Pointing out a disanalogy is a way of refuting an argument by analogy.

They need to be relevantly similar, which is to say that they need to be similar relevant to the point or argument you're trying to make.

Which means, if there is a relevant dissimilarity, then the analogy fails.

No.

In your example, all black people were criticized. Black is a race of people. Using racial slurs is wrong because it is meant to criticize people based on race.

Muslim isn't a race. It is a description that signifies holding a particular set of ideas. And that set of ideas is the islamic faith.

And to satirize "The Prophet Muhammed" is is satirize islam.

Any offense they take is irrelevant.

And my point was merely to note that there was a disanalogy in your argument, i.e., there was a relevant dissimilarity between the cartoonists, and your example, and that therefore, your analogy failed.

I'm not attempting to impress anyone. I was merely pointing out a flaw in your argument.

I also find it strange (though not uncommon) that you are responding in a hostile manner to being told that you're wrong.

There is nothing wrong with being mistaken about something. You shouldn't feel so married to your views that when challenged, you debate in a hostile manner.

If I was mistaken about something, and someone had a sound argument as to why a view I held was mistaken, I would be glad to hear it.

I don't want to be wrong about something any longer than I need to be.

I understand.

I don't think that is at all clear.

Making such an inference on the basis of what I've posted seems unjustified.

I'm not wasting time.

I also never accused you of saying anything you didn't say. I merely pointed out a disanalogy in your argument.

Well this thread sure went downhill

That's not the whole deal and you know it. The French people are pissed off at their government for violating the international human rights of people in the Middle East. The bottom line is that it's a tribal war of tit for tat between the Arabs, Islam and the French government. The violence is going to go on for a long time to come.

look , there is no point in instigating the situation...it's tragic enough... also there is no point in subjecting yourself to individual tribulation because you want to be trendy.... next week there will be a new flavor as usual..

my advice for you is, if you really feel righteous, take a closer look at the limitations of freedom going on in our own backyard...

you want to have voice? first let your voice be heard at home, then abroad.

there are plenty of other situations occurring daily here in the US, that are far worse that what happened in Paris.

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm, duh. They obviously needed to generate some clicks

Observer.... wrote:

Well this thread sure went downhill

Maybe they were just immature and provoking. But you know what: THAT DOESN'T MATTER.

Feel offended? Sue them. Or, have a talk with them. Or punch them in the face if that's more you're style. But NOTHING anyone says or does is a justification to kill them.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

It may not be wise to provoke people who kill people, but that does NOT mean the people who kill people are excused for doing so.

I understand your point but I doesn't strike me as correct, or representing my view.

I have no argument against a satirical magazine publishing offensive material. That's what they do and they have the legal right to do so. I defend their right to do so of course.

But now - you are saying that to defend western civ I have to be a sh$t? I'm not following your logic. I don't think western civ is served well if everyone decides it is their responsibility to be a sh$t. That's like what you would expect in a barbarian tribe, not in a sophisticated society like ours.

For western civ to work, people have to behave and not scapegoat or deliberately p$ss off large amounts of neighbors.

In other words, we can have a few provocateurs who deliberately try to offend. But if everyone decides they need to offend certain groups, you have stopped being civilized and have become tribal barbarians. You know, like Nazis.

A lot of you are going off on tangents about free speech. Free speech isn't the issue here. This is all about jihad.