FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Does that make you wrong?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Charlie Hebdo cartoon on dead Syrian child sparks anger
- Thread starter FearGod
- Start date
Does that make you wrong?
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
I don't think so, it just means I don't buy into religion. What do you think it makes me?
No can do. Misinformation and hate speech must be kept in check.
Common sense, mainly.
Links are blocked here at work. Is it this one:
?
I google translated it and refined it. It does say "is this is what Aylan (Alan) would have become if he had grown up?" indeed. Those hands seem to be directed towards something in a lower place of the running women, which is supposedly their rears to grope. Or at best, it clearly shows happy men running behind scared women.
Here are my thoughts about the above pic:
1) It clearly generalizes ALL refugees as women's rear gropers; rapists is highly the implied meaning, since it is about a long gone dead child that did nothing at all.
2) It insults a dead child, Alan, deciding his future as dirty.
3) It gives no regard to the feelings of the dead child's family and friends.
I say this is disgusting and a new level in sinking so low in human values, if then it is considered human any more anyway.
Instead of referring to specific incidents and specific people, they chose to use a dead child for their dirty deeds? And here I felt bad for CH at some point. What's the child's fault in all this?
Is this what open freedom of speech does to people? If so, then I prefer living in a heavy freedom restriction for all my life.
?
I google translated it and refined it. It does say "is this is what Aylan (Alan) would have become if he had grown up?" indeed. Those hands seem to be directed towards something in a lower place of the running women, which is supposedly their rears to grope. Or at best, it clearly shows happy men running behind scared women.
Here are my thoughts about the above pic:
1) It clearly generalizes ALL refugees as women's rear gropers; rapists is highly the implied meaning, since it is about a long gone dead child that did nothing at all.
2) It insults a dead child, Alan, deciding his future as dirty.
3) It gives no regard to the feelings of the dead child's family and friends.
I say this is disgusting and a new level in sinking so low in human values, if then it is considered human any more anyway.
Instead of referring to specific incidents and specific people, they chose to use a dead child for their dirty deeds? And here I felt bad for CH at some point. What's the child's fault in all this?
Is this what open freedom of speech does to people? If so, then I prefer living in a heavy freedom restriction for all my life.
gsa
Well-Known Member
Links are blocked here at work. Is it this one:
?
I google translated it and refined it. It does say "is this is what Aylan (Alan) would have become if he had grown up?" indeed. Those hands seem to be directed towards something in a lower place of the running women, which is supposedly their rears to grope. Or at best, it clearly shows happy men running behind scared women.
Here are my thoughts about the above pic:
1) It clearly generalizes ALL refugees as women's rear gropers; rapists is highly the implied meaning, since it is about a long gone dead child that did nothing at all.
2) It insults a dead child, Alan, deciding his future as dirty.
3) It gives no regard to the feelings of the dead child's family and friends.
I say this is disgusting and a new level in sinking so low in human values, if then it is considered human any more anyway.
Instead of referring to specific incidents and specific people, they chose to use a dead child for their dirty deeds? And here I felt bad for CH at some point. What's the child's fault in all this?
Is this what open freedom of speech does to people? If so, then I prefer living in a heavy freedom restriction for all my life.
All you are telling me is that you do not understand satire.
The cartoon in question is in support of refugees. It is an anti-racist condemnation of European racism.
I happen not to agree with it, because I think that European concerns over cultural integration are legitimate. In Europe my position on this issue would be moderate to conservative. But Charlie Hebdo is anti-racist and fairly left wing.
You should probably remain in a culture that devalues free speech if you think this is racist or offensive. Better not to explore the frontier if you are not ready for it.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
No problem with the free speech, One of the animals in the CH has a dirty opinion
by using an innocent child who died in a tragic event as to mock about the refugees
as being buttocks gropers and implying that the dead child will be a buttock groper
in the future.
My opinion that what they did in the CH is a filthy job which is inhuman.
No, it does not. It is satire. An exageration for warning purposes.
Really? I don't see it there at all. In any way, shape, degree or form.
This I must agree with.
Hardly.
Nowhere. That is half the point, actually.
I am disappointed. I can only hope you will think better about that in the future.
Okay. But then again, does satire allow us to give no regard to the feelings of a dead child's family and friends?
If you don't see it, others do. It is not my fault that CH can't send a clear message.
Thank you. I honestly can't see how you can, with this agreement, be okay with it then.
Not my problem if you think giving no regard to the feelings of the dead child's family and friends is okay and a humane act.
Good. It's half the point, then it matters. Also, further to the point you agreed with, what's the fault of the family and friends of the dead child to have their feelings disregarded like that?
Sorry, but I can't see living in a community that allows giving no regard to the family and friends of a dead child in the name of free speech a good thing.
You seem to be disappointed in a question. I don't mind getting my self tied; i.e. "living in a heavy freedom restriction" in my last post, as much as I do in a community that allows me to do it. It is not that I'm against freedom of speech as a concept. Everything has a limit in life.
It is a clear enough message to me:
"Caring about innocent refugees and giving them refuge is not the end, but the start of our duty. The culture shock will be at least as much of a challenge."
Why wouldn't I?
Uh? That is not even what we are talking about.
None. Again, that is hardly the matter.
Okay, I am now officially scared.
That much is true.
I stand disappointed.
MARCELLO
Transitioning from male to female
No,it is not, trying to nuke to mind of western minds to convince (of which I belong to) for nothing cannot be called freedom of speech. For your information ( sure you know very well) C. Hebdo is not anti-racist; it just values european values at the moment. Have we ever seen any caricature of C Hebdo critising the golds stolen from Africa that France really did ? Darent't they?
It is really absurd to talk about freedom of speech in communities with severe hunger problem. Living in Africa for several years myself, I shockedly observed the high roof buildings in Africa where it never snows, so needless.
These cartoons may only mean for the people living in Paris districts,nothing more. Africa does not need C. Hebdo,neither should C. Hebdo .
Where did this come from? I asked in my first post if it is "that" one I posted from else where and no one told me anything about it. I clearly said that the links are blocked here.
Yet you're okay with doing it?
But it's related to a point you disagreed with. I said it's not a humane act and you disagreed, so I used another point you agreed with that supports the validity of the claim you disagreed with.
Oh yes it is, or at least related to it.
Anyone living under the freedom of giving no regard to the families and friends of dead people should.
I'm the one disappointed.
Yes. This is my main complaint about blind freedom of speech, not freedom of speech itself. Other don't seem to want to understand my stance.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
So you think as the filthy guys in the CH think that the Middle eastern culture is dangerous for the west and
all of the refugees including the dead child if lived will be a buttock groper running after the scared girls.
A warning message,am i right or the satire has something else to say.
gsa
Well-Known Member
To be specific, remaining/going wherever you want is of course your own business, subject to the laws of the places you want to go. You just said that you had no desire to live in a free country if it results in things like Charlie Hebdo. I then pointed out that if you are not ready for it, you should probably avoid open societies.
If you think that is so terribly offensive, I'm not sure why you suggested that your sensibilities were so fragile that you could not possibly live in a society that allowed a magazine like Charlie Hebdo to exist.
You know what most people find offensive, by the way? State sponsored murder of witches, gay people, apostates. Hurt feelings over a cartoon are nothing compared to what your society does on a daily basis. So spare me your "I'm offended" routine and get over yourself.
gsa
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you are trying to say.