Charlie Hebdo cartoon on dead Syrian child sparks anger

[gsa]

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.

Charlie Hebdo is not "inhuman," whatever that means.

"One of the animals in CH" you say. You use this kind of dehumanizing language, and then you have the audacity to call CH "inhuman." Spare me.

 

[FearGod]

Charlie Hebdo is not "inhuman," whatever that means.

"One of the animals in CH" you say. You use this kind of dehumanizing language, and then you have the audacity to call CH "inhuman." Spare me.

I'm only expressing my opinion about those guys in the Ch as being filthy and inhuman,
whats wrong with it?

 

[gsa]

I'm only expressing my opinion about those guys in the Ch as being filthy and inhuman,
whats wrong with it?

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you are ok with people expressing their "opinion" that Muslims are filthy and inhuman. Animals with dirty opinions, as you said.

If you are not OK with that, you should probably revisit your choice of words.

 

[FearGod]

Nothing wrong with that, as long as you are ok with people expressing their "opinion" that Muslims are filthy and inhuman. Animals with dirty opinions, as you said.

If you are not OK with that, you should probably revisit your choice of words.

That's stupid as you're generalizing Muslims of being filthy and inhumans which is against the forum rules,
even though that you made it as parallel to what i said about the CH and that can't work.

My opinion wasn't about a nation or an ethnic group etc, but it was my opinion based on
the opinions and the ideas of the CH.

Did i say Christians or the west are filthy? if one say so, then he's a stupid, and as stupid as the one
who may say that all Muslims are filthy, the same as you did.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm the one disappointed.

I just don't understand why.

 

[LuisDantas]

So you think as the filthy guys in the CH

You should have more respect for the victims of hate than to call them "filthy".

think that the Middle eastern culture is dangerous for the west

Cultural clashes are always somewhat risky. Warning about that is nearly always a good thing, and always necessary.

I do not approve of your attitude about this matter in the slightest.

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.

I won't try to guess what you mean here. It is clear that there is considerable language challenge.

 

[gsa]

That's stupid as you're generalizing Muslims of being filthy and inhumans which is against the forum rules,
even though that you made it as parallel to what i said about the CH and that can't work.

My opinion wasn't about a nation or an ethnic group etc, but it was my opinion based on
the opinions and the ideas of the CH.

Did i say Christians or the west are filthy? if one say so, then he's a stupid, and as stupid as the one
who may say that all Muslims are filthy, the same as you did.

I did not say anyone was a filthy animal. I simply said that calling people animals with dirty opinions was dehumanizing. You are the only person in this thread, as far as I can see, who has called other human beings inhuman and animals with dirty opinions.

By the way, someone who says Muslims are inhuman animals with dirty opinions is not making a comment about a nation or ethnic group. That's just their opinion, based on the opinions and ideas of Islam. Islam is not a nation and Muslims are not an ethnic group.

Doesn't sound so convincing when I say the same thing you do and change the names, does it?

 

[FearGod]

I did not say anyone was a filthy animal. I simply said that calling people animals with dirty opinions was dehumanizing. You are the only person in this thread, as far as I can see, who has called other human beings inhuman and animals with dirty opinions.

By the way, someone who says Muslims are inhuman animals with dirty opinions is not making a comment about a nation or ethnic group. That's just their opinion, based on the opinions and ideas of Islam. Islam is not a nation and Muslims are not an ethnic group.

Doesn't sound so convincing when I say the same thing you do and change the names, does it?

And insulting the refugees and the dead child as buttock gropers running after scared women is
just an opinion to you but if i say the guy who said so was a filthy guy then my opinion is a dirty one.

It looks to me racism at its best.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

So satire makes it okay to use a dead child as an object for whatever reason, and here it is related to something like rape?

The far-right, racist elements of European society were already linking Alani to the rapes by guilt of association i.e. all refugees. Where was the outrage of folks like yourself and FearGod when they were doing it? But now Charlie Hebdo are doing it (in an ironic sense, I might add) it's all of a sudden despicable.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

And insulting the refugees and the dead child as buttock gropers running after scared women is
just an opinion to you but if i say the guy who said so was a filthy guy then my opinion is a dirty one.

That's not what they're doing though. They're using the image in an ironic way to make a mockery of the actual racist, xenophobic elements like Pegida who are already doing this. How come you're not upset about them?

But, of course, why let the facts get in the way of your prejudice against a magazine that has depicted Muhammed in the past?

It looks to me racism at its best.

It looks to me that you're out of arguments if that is is all you can fall back on. Your position is hypocritical:

• Group A (Charlie Hebdo staff) = animals with dirty opinions' is fine.
• Group B (Muslims) = animals with dirty opinions' is racist and divisive.

If you don't like the ugliness of statement B then don't issue statement A and it won't be reflected back on you.

Let me remind you: Islam. Is not. A. Race.

 

[9Westy9]

Being a leftist should not be that much easy. Making fun of, irresponsibly ,sensitive oriental communities should not be covered under freedom of speech. We all know it never worked,why try and try for nothing?

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 would rather live in a country where I can say what I want, than live in a country where freedom of speech is restricted; just in case I offend someone. I'll never support the position that someone's right not to be offended trumps another persons freedom of speech.

 

[FearGod]

You should have more respect for the victims of hate than to call them "filthy".

The CH is the victim? i didn't understand how it's the victim?
Would you please explain?

Cultural clashes are always somewhat risky. Warning about that is nearly always a good thing, and always necessary.

Warning that the middle eastern culture is savage and uncivilized to the western world.

I do not approve of your attitude about this matter in the slightest.

So what the satire means other than to dehumanize the middle eastern people from childhood to adulthood.

I won't try to guess what you mean here. It is clear that there is considerable language challenge.

The satire is a warning message that the middle eastern people are rapists, will run after the
scared women, in which you agree with, if not then explain what it means than what it
actually means?

 

[Smart_Guy]

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.

Why getting offended over telling you it is my business? You don't wanna take that offense, don't give small talk about it.

You have absolutely no understanding of what I said about freedom of speech. Read and understand before giving such pathetic claims. I never implied that CH should not exist and I clearly and strictly talked about a specific act about a specific case. I spoke of a specific act of CH, not CF themselves. And keep those open societies to yourself. I'm not stupid to go there.

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.

Such pathetic masking of feelings. "What most people find offensive" he says.

What do I have to do with this ranting and blabbering? A complete irrelevant useless talk that serves no purpose to this topic. You want absolute freedom of speech and now you use this tune which shows you're offended? Such double standards.

Me taking the offense is irrelevant. We are talking about a specific case here. You're the one taking the offense of talking about your kind of freedom of speech protecting it against what, another free speech? So typical.

If you wanna act with me with that tone, I reply with you in the same tone.

 

[FearGod]

That's not what they're doing though. They're using the image in an ironic way to make a mockery of the actual racist, xenophobic elements like Pegida who are already doing this. How come you're not upset about them?

But, of course, why let the facts get in the way of your prejudice against a magazine that has depicted Muhammed in the past?

I have no problem for what they want to draw including Muhammed, but i have the right to express
my opinion that they're filthy guys and better that money spent in something useful than this silly magazine, still just my opinion, and for your information " I don't care if you think that all Muslims are dirty and filthy"

It looks to me that you're out of arguments if that is is all you can fall back on. Your position is hypocritical:

• Group A (Charlie Hebdo staff) = animals with dirty opinions' is fine.
• Group B (Muslims) = animals with dirty opinions' is racist and divisive.

If you don't like the ugliness of statement B then don't issue statement A and it won't be reflected back on you.

Let me remind you: Islam. Is not. A. Race.

Again " I don't care if you think that all Muslims are dirty and filthy"

 

[Smart_Guy]

I would rather live in a country where I can say what I want, than live in a country where freedom of speech is restricted; just in case I offend someone. I'll never support the position that someone's right not to be offended trumps another persons freedom of speech.

I see no offense in what you are saying at all. I respect your opinion and desire and the respectful way in stating it.

The far-right, racist elements of European society were already linking Alani to the rapes by guilt of association i.e. all refugees. Where was the outrage of folks like yourself and FearGod when they were doing it? But now Charlie Hebdo are doing it (in an ironic sense, I might add) it's all of a sudden despicable.

How can I talk about what I don't know? All I know of it is that the child drowned and nothing else.

 

[gsa]

Why getting offended over telling you it is my business? You don't wanna take that offense, don't give small talk about it.

You have absolutely no understanding of what I said about freedom of speech. Read and understand before giving such pathetic claims. I never implied that CH should not exist and I clearly and strictly talked about a specific act about a specific case. I spoke of a specific act of CH, not CF themselves. And keep those open societies to yourself. I'm not stupid to go there.



Such pathetic masking of feelings. "What most people find offensive" he says.

What do I have to do with this ranting and blabbering? A complete irrelevant useless talk that serves no purpose to this topic. You want absolute freedom of speech and now you use this tune which shows you're offended? Such double standards.

Me taking the offense is irrelevant. We are talking about a specific case here. You're the one taking the offense of talking about your kind of freedom of speech protecting it against what, another free speech? So typical.

If you wanna act with me with that tone, I reply with you in the same tone.

To be clear, Smart Guy:

1. I am not offended by your opinion, nor worried about it. It is being broadcast from KSA, one of the most foul human rights violators on the planet. It should stay there, ideally.

2. You have every right to call CH racist, Islamophobic or whatever the preferred bastardized or invented word is today to denigrate anyone who is critical of Muslims or Islam.

3. The fact that I think your opinion about free societies is ridiculous is part of living in a free society. There's no double standard there.

4. KSA's multiple (and multiplying) human rights violations are relevant when you go on a tangent about not wanting to live in any society that values free speech. You don't like Charlie Hebdo, fine. But to complain about Charlie Hebdo while your own government murders people for their beliefs or their sexuality is absurd.

You know what the best part about this fight is SG? I do not agree with the actual sentiment being expressed in the cartoon because it is too blindly supportive of current European refugee policy. While you and FearGod complain about its allegedly racist and anti-Muslim connotations (even though the only reason you are actually complaining about Charlie Hebdo is because they allegedly insulted your prophet), I am more critical of their suggestion that Europe should carelessly open its doors to millions of people with your belief system. The cartoonists no doubt would consider my position "racist."

 

[Jumi]

This is getting silly. I think it's ridiculous to make fun of the dead child for any reason even if it's to support immigration. He may not exist anymore, but it will hurt the parents and relatives. I think the CH style is pretty juvenile and not meaningful for mass distribution. We have had similar cartoons, but everyone except the "fans" wisely ignore them. For some reason CH has publicity not meant for this kind of expression.

They may be leftist and anti-racist, but their works find most use among racist far right and fundamentalist. Getting support for both sides of the idiot stick is no good no matter what they intended. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I just don't understand why.

I misunderstood you. Sorry.

 

[Crypto2015]

After their terrorist attack, Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists became cowards. They even stated publicly that they wouldn't draw Muhammad anymore. Then they tried to appease ISIS by drawing that appalling and completely-not-funny cartoon about the Russian plane that was destroyed by ISIS. Then they blamed the Christian God for the terrorist attack in their offices (they draw God with a trinity triangle over his head for the Muslims to know that they weren't drawing Allah). This magazine has no balls and no taste. It is time for them to stop publishing.

 

[Smart_Guy]

To be clear, Smart Guy:

1. I am not offended by your opinion, nor worried about it. It is being broadcast from KSA, one of the most foul human rights violators on the planet. It should stay there, ideally.

2. You have every right to call CH racist, Islamophobic or whatever the preferred bastardized or invented word is today to denigrate anyone who is critical of Muslims or Islam.

3. The fact that I think your opinion about free societies is ridiculous is part of living in a free society. There's no double standard there.

4. KSA's multiple (and multiplying) human rights violations are relevant when you go on a tangent about not wanting to live in any society that values free speech. You don't like Charlie Hebdo, fine. But to complain about Charlie Hebdo while your own government murders people for their beliefs or their sexuality is absurd.

You know what the best part about this fight is SG? I do not agree with the actual sentiment being expressed in the cartoon because it is too blindly supportive of current European refugee policy. While you and FearGod complain about its allegedly racist and anti-Muslim connotations (even though the only reason you are actually complaining about Charlie Hebdo is because they allegedly insulted your prophet), I am more critical of their suggestion that Europe should carelessly open its doors to millions of people with your belief system. The cartoonists no doubt would consider my position "racist."

You're still bringing irrelevant matters to the topic. Judging me because of things my country did is nothing but racist. This only opens irrelevant discussions. All I said was making a suggestion for my own, without pushing it on others other than me, that I do not want to live with a freedom of speech that allows:

1) Generalizing all refugees as evil people.

2) Insulting dead children by picturing their future in an inappropriate way.

3) Giving no regard to the feelings of the family and friends of a dead child.

if, and only if, the free speech allows it (refer to my first post again to see it). Now, my above three thoughts might be wrong after all, since everyone makes mistakes, but I strictly connected it with an "if" phrase which I suppose everyone with English knowledge should know what it means; e.g. if yes, then it applies. What's wrong with wanting to not live with such free speech? That's my own personal decision that does not harm anyone. Making comments against it only means there is something to imply.

And what do Muslims have to do with it? Who says that the refugees are all Muslims? Also, I think I know now why you started all this. It is what in red in your post. Go read my posts in the threads about the CH & prophet Muhammad (all my other posts all over RF actually) before using such claim against me.