European Terror Attacks - Page 30

13-01-2015, 16:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

take a minute to read what you have posted. Then write me a 2 pages of A4 report on why it is a complete load of bollocks.

why is it ,instead of being so arrogant explain your reasoning ,or is it simply bollocks because it is different opinion to yours

Taf · 13-01-2015, 16:48

I still don't understand why Jesus (a prophet to muslims) is allowed to be portrayed in pictures, statues, etc., but not their other prophet?

**Maggy** · 13-01-2015, 16:59

It might be time for some members to step away from this thread and go and calm down.

By the way just because some words escape the swear filter does not make it OK to use them on a regular basis.

13-01-2015, 17:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

It might be time for some members to step away from this thread and go and calm down.

By the way just because some words escape the swear filter does not make it OK to use them on a regular basis.

So basically what you're saying is that freedom of expression comes with limits

---------- Post added at 18:15 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taf

I still don't understand why Jesus (a prophet to muslims) is allowed to be portrayed in pictures, statues, etc., but not their other prophet?

Because jesus is the son of god to Christians but only a man to Muslims(and jews) and as such cannot be portrayed in statue or picture form, because that would be classed as idolotry to a Muslim

Pierre · 13-01-2015, 17:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

why is it ,instead of being so arrogant explain your reasoning ,or is it simply bollocks because it is different opinion to yours

How do you differentiate between the Muslims that take offence and the ones that don't?

Do you draw a cartoon of Mohammed and write on it for Jihadists only?

Mr Angry · 13-01-2015, 17:45

Interesting.

**Damien** · 13-01-2015, 17:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

How do you differentiate between the Muslims that take offence and the ones that don't?

Do you draw a cartoon of Mohammed and write on it for Jihadists only?

Isn't that the point? You can't. So there is a valid argument that to display the pictures is to insult a bunch of people most of whom didn't do anything wrong. Extending it further you could say it feeds the terrorists narrative that this is a battle of Islam vs the West rather than a fight against extremism.

Making that argument doesn't mean you're against free speech. Free speech also includes things you disagree with.

I mean personally I like the idea that they're coming back with the same picture as a statement they won't cede to violence but I can see the logic in the other argument.

---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:46 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Interesting.

I don't buy a lot of that. He points out that many papers and magazines have refused to run cartoons they find distasteful but that isn't a violation of the principle of free speech, it's people deciding what they want on their platform.

He is right about the Poppys though. Maybe. Slightly different setting fire to them though.

Russ · 13-01-2015, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

How do you differentiate between the Muslims that take offence and the ones that don't?

Do you draw a cartoon of Mohammed and write on it for Jihadists only?

I don't care about the ones who take offence.

My concern is with those who take action because of it.

Pierre · 13-01-2015, 18:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

Isn't that the point? You can't. So there is a valid argument that to display the pictures is to insult a bunch of people most of whom didn't do anything wrong.

I'm a scouser. Now when ever we are lampooned a la Harry Enfield as tight permed, moustached, she'll suit wearing, thieves calming down a lot.

That depiction may offend some scousers it may not offend others, any non-scousers usually find it hilarious

Do we censor it so as not offend the easily offended, who also did nothing wrong other than bring born in Liverpool (although some may think that bad enough)

it the old offence argument. You have every to be offended, they have every right to offend.

Quote:

He is right about the Poppys though. Maybe. Slightly different setting fire to them though.

If a Muslim wanted to set fire to a poppy, so be it. I wouldn't like it, but neither would I hit him or shoot him.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

I don't care about the ones who take offence.

My concern is with those who take action because of it.

Indeed. I share your concern, but I wouldn't change my behavior to accommodate them.

If I was in Pakistan or Saudi, then yes I would. I would conform to their ways and wants, but we're not. We're in the UK and they should bend our way not the other way around.

Russ · 13-01-2015, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

Indeed. I share your concern, but I wouldn't change my behavior to accommodate them.

Nobody is saying you should.

**Damien** · 13-01-2015, 18:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

I'm a scouser. Now when ever we are lampooned a la Harry Enfield as tight permed, moustached, she'll suit wearing, thieves calming down a lot.

That depiction may offend some scousers it may not offend others, any non-scousers usually find it hilarious

Do we censor it so as not offend the easily offended, who also did nothing wrong other than bring born in Liverpool (although some may think that bad enough)

it the old offence argument. You have every to be offended, they have every right to offend.

I agree.

I don't see what the dispute has been about the last few pages. I don't think anyone has said that these cartoons should be banned by law or that violence is warranted against those who publish them. That's all free speech really affords you.

Other than that people can seriously criticise the decision of others to say or publish something which is what's happening and that too can be criticised in turn.

I am just saying that because a few pages back people were telling martyh that people have the right not to be murdered which seems redundant.

I probably am missing something. This is like when I tired to understand what gamergate was about.

13-01-2015, 18:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

How do you differentiate between the Muslims that take offence and the ones that don't?

Do you draw a cartoon of Mohammed and write on it for Jihadists only?

You don't and as Damien said that is the point.Apart from that insulting a religious icon (of any religion) is to insult the religion itself therefore all the followers ,how much offence is taken by individuals depends on the individual naturally

Osem · 13-01-2015, 19:01

See the thing is, folks can argue, disagree, be offended and even get personal here but nobody loses their heads...

**Hugh** · 13-01-2015, 19:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

See the thing is, folks can argue, disagree, be offended and even get personal here but nobody loses their heads.

But doesn't that mean that members of a group can have different views on things, and it would be mistaken to assume the views of a small vociferious minority are that of the majority?

That would be like people from outside CF assuming all CF'ers think like Alan Fry, and support his views.......D

Osem · 13-01-2015, 19:07

Come to think of it...