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

This is the result of god-belief.

No, not specifically Islam: GOD-BELIEF. Everyone who believes in god(s), and in particular everyone who, like Muslims, believes in the "God" of Abraham--that would include Christians and Jews--gives aid and comfort to this kind of madness.

Atheists have killed many people. Very few have been killed in the name of atheism.

God-believers have killed many millions of people, in the name of their imaginary "deity"--belief in which has "excused" the believers' uncountable acts of robbery, torture, rape, and murder.

Don't kid yourself that you're a "moderate" believer: these murderers are just believing more purely, more consistently, more religiously in the same "god" that you follow. And the culture that you help maintain--a culture that sees this kind of belief in an imaginary friend as anything other than something to be scorned, mocked, and ridiculed--had helped these monsters do their murderous work.

Giant Johnson wrote:

While I support posting lewd pictures of Prophet Mo, I'd also like to express my hope that all of the free-speech supporting Christians on Letsrun wouldn't be offended by a picture of a masturbating nun or Jesus humping a dog something.

They can be offended by whatever they choose. I have pretty thick skin but get offended by a few topics or actions.

You know what? I don't kill anyone over it. I do not EXPECT or DEMAND that others stop censor themselves or stop doing what offends me. I simply keep away from those that offend me.

Salman Rushdie, whose book “The Satanic Verses” prompted Iran’s Ayatollah to issue a fatwa on him in 1989, responded to Wednesday’s shooting attack at the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. His statement:

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie

Michael C wrote:

Salman Rushdie, whose book “The Satanic Verses” prompted Iran’s Ayatollah to issue a fatwa on him in 1989, responded to Wednesday’s shooting attack at the Paris offices of French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. His statement:

“Religion, a mediaeval form of unreason, when combined with modern weaponry becomes a real threat to our freedoms. This religious totalitarianism has caused a deadly mutation in the heart of Islam and we see the tragic consequences in Paris today. I stand with Charlie Hebdo, as we all must, to defend the art of satire, which has always been a force for liberty and against tyranny, dishonesty and stupidity. ‘Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.” –Salman Rushdie

Here is my favorite of his:

'Naughty but Nice'

Salman Rushdie

agip wrote:

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.

So the Nazis only went around 'offending' people and that is why, today, we see them as evil?

Ok then.

joho wrote:

agip wrote:

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.

So the Nazis only went around 'offending' people and that is why, today, we see them as evil?

Ok then.

the nazis succeeded by getting everyone to be sh$ts - getting the majority to persecute a tiny minority. Which is pretty much what some on this thread want - they want the giant majority to target a tiny minority, 99% if whom haven't done anything wrong, and make them feel separate, apart and threatened.

take Kristallnacht - it didn't come out of nowhere - it was a deliberate response to a terrorist act committed by a Jew. The nazis took the principal of collective punishment to absurd levels. As do many on this thread.

From Wikipedia: The pretext for the attacks was the assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew living in Paris. Kristallnacht was followed by additional economic and political persecution of Jews, and is viewed by historians as part of Nazi Germany's broader racial policy, and the beginning of the Final Solution and The Holocaust.[7]

The perpetrators of this heinous crime are the scum of the Earth. Despicable excuses for human beings. It is beyond pathetic to kill people for offending you.

However, amongst the many, many freedoms and rights that I would personally risk my life for, you would not find listed the right to make fun of people who believe in a bunch of phoney bologna. If there were extreme disciples of the tooth fairy that murdered those who offensively depicted the tooth fairy, I would think to myself "what a bunch of vile idiots", but I wouldn't risk my life just to point out to them how stupid they are.

Does that make me a coward? So be it. Making fun of losers isn't worth my life.

My point wasn't about majority vs minority. I just don't see the similarities between the Nazi's genocide to the printing of a cartoon that offends a religion.

I'm OK with everyone being provocateurs (of offense), I'm not OK with everyone murdering others, as the Nazis did, just because they are offended.

Besides the obvious trolls, that I always ignore on these type threads, I don't see anyone advocating genocide, Nazi style.

joho wrote:

My point wasn't about majority vs minority. I just don't see the similarities between the Nazi's genocide to the printing of a cartoon that offends a religion.

I'm OK with everyone being provocateurs (of offense), I'm not OK with everyone murdering others, as the Nazis did, just because they are offended.

Besides the obvious trolls, that I always ignore on these type threads, I don't see anyone advocating genocide, Nazi style.

don't be so literal

if you don't see the danger of a large minority being directed/encouraged to target a largely innocent, small minority for collective punishment, then I can't help you

fit to run wrote:

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

You still are talking about something completely different than what he is saying. You are trying to assign your "moral code" to the argument.

The "moral code" is the problem here, not the solution and it has nothing to do with free speech. Everyone has a different moral code, the problems start when people try to force that code on others.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

agip wrote:

joho wrote:

My point wasn't about majority vs minority. I just don't see the similarities between the Nazi's genocide to the printing of a cartoon that offends a religion.

I'm OK with everyone being provocateurs (of offense), I'm not OK with everyone murdering others, as the Nazis did, just because they are offended.

Besides the obvious trolls, that I always ignore on these type threads, I don't see anyone advocating genocide, Nazi style.

don't be so literal

if you don't see the danger of a large minority being directed/encouraged to target a largely innocent, small minority for collective punishment, then I can't help you

let me switch out the word 'danger'

to something like do you see the contradiction? you are saying we have to beat back the barbarians...by enforcing a collective punishment and further alienating the muslims. Is that productive in any way? You think I should be a d$ck and put the cartoons on my facebook page and that is going to beat the barbarians by out-barbarianing them?

it's stupid.

We defend western civ with laws and principles and tolerance, not by encouraing each other to be d$cks.

agip wrote:

agip wrote:

don't be so literal

if you don't see the danger of a large minority being directed/encouraged to target a largely innocent, small minority for collective punishment, then I can't help you

let me switch out the word 'danger'

to something like do you see the contradiction? you are saying we have to beat back the barbarians...by enforcing a collective punishment and further alienating the muslims. Is that productive in any way? You think I should be a d$ck and put the cartoons on my facebook page and that is going to beat the barbarians by out-barbarianing them?

it's stupid.

We defend western civ with laws and principles and tolerance, not by encouraing each other to be d$cks.

Where did I say anything about beating anyone?

We do have laws and principles, it is the TOLERANCE that is missing in this situation.

The law says you can print cartoons of Mohammed.

The law says you can murder people.

Tolerance should say that, even if you don't like the cartoons, you don't kill those that printed them. Tolerance would be, YOU JUST DON'T BUY THEIR NEWSPAPER.

The cartoons were not punishment. And this is no small minority we are talking about. There are over 1.5 BILLION muslims in the world.

joho wrote:

The law says you can murder people.

Come again?

Giant Johnson wrote:

While I support posting lewd pictures of Prophet Mo, I'd also like to express my hope that all of the free-speech supporting Christians on Letsrun wouldn't be offended by a picture of a masturbating nun or Jesus humping a dog something.

It's perfectly OK for them to be offended, OF COURSE. It's the threatening or carrying out murder in response that's the little problem.

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.

Wow dude. Seriously, get a grip.

yarboughs wrote:

The perpetrators of this heinous crime are the scum of the Earth. Despicable excuses for human beings. It is beyond pathetic to kill people for offending you.

However, amongst the many, many freedoms and rights that I would personally risk my life for, you would not find listed the right to make fun of people who believe in a bunch of phoney bologna. If there were extreme disciples of the tooth fairy that murdered those who offensively depicted the tooth fairy, I would think to myself "what a bunch of vile idiots", but I wouldn't risk my life just to point out to them how stupid they are.

Does that make me a coward? So be it. Making fun of losers isn't worth my life.

That was my point all along, which was somehow missed by others (including "SMiLE"). My analogy was saying something (ANYthing...."SMILE" got caught up in the details) that I knew very well could push a potential school shooter or road rage maniac over the edge just in the name "saying my piece/speaking my mind" or "having my freedom of speech" would be dumb. My life isn't gonna change if I don't say those few words that might set off that bomb, but it might be over if I do. so I agree: while I respect on some level the courage of those that print the cartoons, I personally don't think it is worth risking your life over such a minor thing.

I haven't seen the "slippery slope" from refraining from making fun of Muhammed to any other loss of freedoms. So just because it is possible, doesn't make it a reality.

Furthermore, in international relations we do this cost-benefit thing all the time on respecting the idiosyncratic wishes of both our allies and non-allies. If getting Iran to drop their nuke programs means having our diplomats not wear crosses on their chests when meeting with their leaders, is there any question what to do? But if wearing the crosses as an act of defiance means they will plan an attack on us.......really now, this is an easy decision.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Furthermore, in international relations we do this cost-benefit thing all the time on respecting the idiosyncratic wishes of both our allies and non-allies.

Oh boy, look who's cutting and pasting material because he thinks it sounds good.

You couldn't use "idiosyncratic" in a conversation if your life depended on it.

OK agip you are going to have to do better than that. A whole lot better. And I know you can.

Let's start with the bolded statement (question), shall we? By using the phrase "I have to be a shit" you are completely misrepresenting me and further you are assuming your conclusion.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Assume: To publish said cartoons is to "be a shit"

Conclude: Bad idea

QED

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

OK, try starting over with some rational arguments. Like I said, I'm pretty sure that you are capable of this.

agip wrote:

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.

Quick hint for you: Whenever you feel the need to embody Godwin's law it is highly likely that the stance you are defending is wrong.

In this case you are indeed wrong. And playing the Nazi card is WAY beneath you.