blah the Prussian Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 I don't think anyone should suspect they will be murdered for speaking an opinion. To call it anything other than censorship is nothing short of mental blindness. The purpose of free speech is to be free to speak what you wish, without fearing reprisal. Being murdered for speaking an opinion is not freedom. When a group as barbaric as ISIS says they will kill someone, it is not unreasonable to assume they will do so. Charlie Hebdo's editor said he didn't care about the threat, but to not assume ISIS means business is stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) ISIS says it will kill people all the time. They have songs in their videos about destroying the US. Do you think anyone expects it will really happen? There's loads of things you can expect, that have a high probability of occurring. Being murdered generally isn't one. This situation included. Regardless, it's an unwarranted act and no one should fear speaking their mind because of a bunch of madmen. Hebdo did not deserve that treatment and watching others pretend it's the case makes my blood boil. Edited February 6, 2015 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 ISIS says it will kill people all the time. They have songs in their videos about destroying the US. Do you think anyone expects it will really happen? There's loads of things you can expect, that have a high probability of occurring. Being murdered generally isn't one. This situation included. Regardless, it's an unwarranted act and no one should fear speaking their mind because of a bunch of madmen. Hebdo did not deserve that treatment and watching others pretend it's the case makes my blood boil. I never said that they deserved anything that happened to them. I hold them in a terribly low regard. However, the idea that it is equally realistic to destroy the US and shoot up a magazine stand is folly, as is making a stand against their evil and not expecting retaliation. The U.S. Isn't ignoring ISIS, now is it? ISIS is certainly trying its best to destroy America. Will it succeed? Operation Sealion had better odds. But it is trying as much as it tried (and succeeded) at giving Charlie Hebdo their perverse idea of justice. Your argument is faulty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 The purpose of free speech is to be free to speak what you wish, without fearing reprisal. I don't think it's quite the case. I believe that every action, including speech, should carry its own consequence (whether it be good or bad), but. . . Being murdered for speaking an opinion is not freedom. . . .I firmly agree with this. No matter how awful someone's opinion is, the worst they'll get out of me (as long as they follow the forum rules) is vocal disagreement, or the judgment that they're not worth my time. Physical harm isn't the answer, and neither is bowing to the will of an entity deranged enough to threaten such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I don't think it's quite the case. I believe that every action, including speech, should carry its own consequence (whether it be good or bad), but. . .. . .I firmly agree with this. No matter how awful someone's opinion is, the worst they'll get out of me (as long as they follow the forum rules) is vocal disagreement, or the judgment that they're not worth my time. Physical harm isn't the answer, and neither is bowing to the will of an entity deranged enough to threaten such. I never said it was. I never said ISIS had the right to do what they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 I never said it was. I never said ISIS had the right to do what they did. Read the second part of the last sentence in that post you quoted. Though I'm not of fan of what Hebdo has to say/publish, I express my discontent by not buying/reading their stuff. I don't blame them for continuing to operate despite the inappropriate reaction to their material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Read the second part of the last sentence in that post you quoted. Though I'm not of fan of what Hebdo has to say/publish, I express my discontent by not buying/reading their stuff. I don't blame them for continuing to operate despite the inappropriate reaction to their material. I was responding to the second part of your statement. It seems to me that we agree, you just don't like my clinical approach to the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapier Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 It's logical that, when someone threatens you with a gun to the head, you shouldn't respond back immediately. They received threats from radicals and got their reward. That's cause and consequence. That's what your 'clinical' approach says. It is understandable why the incident happened, but being 'understandable' means little - many atrocious historical acts are 'understandable', does this mean we should shrug and say 'well, that's understandable'? Should we hold such a passive attitude toward groups who are more than willing to take others' freedom of expression? I strongly disagree with it. In short, I find your clinical approach valid, but not much relevant to the matter at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 However, the idea that it is equally realistic to destroy the US and shoot up a magazine stand is folly, as is making a stand against their evil and not expecting retaliation. Charlie Hebdo is one of many publications that have been threatened. This isn't even a cogent line of argument if you hold them in disregard. Who really cares whether ISIS would probably make due on its threats? What's the point of this line of argument if not to legitimize ISIS's actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 It's logical that, when someone threatens you with a gun to the head, you shouldn't respond back immediately. They received threats from radicals and got their reward. That's cause and consequence. That's what your 'clinical' approach says. It is understandable why the incident happened, but being 'understandable' means little - many atrocious historical acts are 'understandable', does this mean we should shrug and say 'well, that's understandable'? Should we hold such a passive attitude toward groups who are more than willing to take others' freedom of expression? I strongly disagree with it. In short, I find your clinical approach valid, but not much relevant to the matter at hand. I have said this many times, but I never argued that we should shrug and say that it is understandable. The proper course of action is to punish them for what they did. This line of argument is pointless, I agree. We essentially agree that what they did is barbaric. That should be all that matters. This goes for Essau, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Question: What about the attack on the kosher supermarket at the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attack? Did the Jews shopping in there also deserve it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Question: What about the attack on the kosher supermarket at the same time as the Charlie Hebdo attack? Did the Jews shopping in there also deserve it? I never said anyone, including Charlie Hebdo, deserved anything. No, they did not deserve that, and recieved no warning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I never said anyone, including Charlie Hebdo, deserved anything. No, they did not deserve that, and recieved no warning. So we have two "may be related" massacres, one which can be argued whether or not it was deserved (depends on any given view) and the second that can only be chalked up to killing Jews. These radicals are only looking for reasons to attack everyone else. Remind me again why we have to appease them? And who here is in favour of handing over the Sudetenland again? Because look at how well that worked out last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blah the Prussian Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 So we have two "may be related" massacres, one which can be argued whether or not it was deserved (depends on any given view) and the second that can only be chalked up to killing Jews. These radicals are only looking for reasons to attack everyone else. Remind me again why we have to appease them? And who here is in favour of handing over the Sudetenland again? Because look at how well that worked out last time. I never said we had to appease them. All I said was that it was naive of the French to be surprised when ISIS made good on their threat, just as it was, to use your example, for Chamberlain and Lebrun to assume Hitler would have stopped at the Sudetenland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philax Posted February 26, 2015 Share Posted February 26, 2015 I'm normally afraid to talk about this subject, but I have to admit, this attack has scared me. Anti-Muslim bullying at my school is becoming a problem. It also worries me because people are seeing French Muslims as extremists when in fact they're the best-integrated Muslims in Europe. My Jewish friend has been affected by it too, because he's afraid that his parents will force the family to move to Israel. He told me that he'd hate living in Israel because he wouldn't be able to see me. On at least one French site I frequent I've been branded a terrorist because I have Muslim friends. No, I don't read Charlie Hebdo, I think it's a stupid magazine, but those people did not deserve to get killed. People also seem to forget that two Muslim men were killed in the attack as well (not the terrorists - one of them was a cop and the other worked for Charlie Hebdo). It seems that every time Muslim terrorists commit an atrocity the entire Muslim community is blamed for it and I'm f***ing sick of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timely Rain Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 They definetely did not deserve that. I mean, yes, it can annoy you, but if we have to prevent ourselves from making jokes about something that might annoy other people... And besides, that is no reason to kill anyone! A bit off topic, but the radicals recently destroyed ancient pieces of art. What a bunch of barbarians! And there was no reason for doing that, because the sculptures destroyed were made way before Muhammad was even born! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.