Do you think it's smart to make caricatures now

[McBell]

No i'm not. But that's the reality of this world.

So who exactly do you think is to blame for killing a person, the one who actually physically kills a person, the person the one who does the actual killing claims did and or said something that "made" them do the actual killing, or perhaps both?

 

[Pastek]

The person who killed someone of course is the first responsable.
But the one who provocated him share a part of responsability. Because he knew it was possible that some people are killed.

You know, yesterday i was watching the news and a french living in Cairo with his family said " It's easy for them to do their cartoons behind their desk in Paris, but they don't think it can be dangereous for us"

I think it's more important to care about people.
And their is many other things people can laught about.

That's my opinion. But i wanted in that post knowing your opinion

 

[HonestJoe]

Okay, so if I'm willing to kill your mom, you should shut up? You just excused the actions of lunatics by saying that we should never question crazy.

You could try actually reading what you're replying to, such as the bit where I explicitly state I'm not saying you can't question them.

 

[Spark]

Right to protest pacifically ? you are talking about muslims ?

It is enough to accurately depict his life. For example, muhammad married a 6 year old, began molesting her at once, and began having intercourse with her (raping her) when she was 9. That isn’t what non-Muslims say; that is what Muslims say, and their justification for the ongoing forced marriage, including of underage girls, in so many countries.

There is so much more. In any event. People have every right to criticize Islam and Muhammed and make fun of them.

 

[Pastek]

It is enough to accurately depict his life. For example, muhammad married a 6 year old, began molesting her at once, and began having intercourse with her (raping her) when she was 9. That isn’t what non-Muslims say; that is what Muslims say, and their justification for the ongoing forced marriage, including of underage girls, in so many countries.

No, correction. That's what some muslims say, not all.

It's impossible that Aisha was 6 years old, because she accepted Islam when she was young, and she had relations with the Prophet after they left Mecca.
There's many hadith who contradict the fact that she was 6 or 9.
Many muslims scholars believe that she was between 14 or 20 years old.

People believe what they want. The question was "is it the time to do cartoons mocking Islam after all that happened around the world ?"

The question was not, "do you love Islam".

 

[Wirey]

You could try actually reading what you're replying to, such as the bit where I explicitly state I'm not saying you can't question them.

Actually, I believe the point you were trying to make is that if I write an op-ed piece that says "This Is What Muhammed Looks Like, and Here's His Six Year Old Wife, Whom He Deflowered" I can expect an attack, and instaed should keep my mouth shut. Or did I miss the point?

Aisha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Revoltingest]

Time to cause Canuckistanians to riot.
Here is a cartoon of what life there is like.

 

[Spark]

No, correction. That's what some muslims say, not all.

It's impossible that Aisha was 6 years old, because she accepted Islam when she was young, and she had relations with the Prophet after they left Mecca.
There's many hadith who contradict the fact that she was 6 or 9.
Many muslims scholars believe that she was between 14 or 20 years old.

People believe what they want. The question was "is it the time to do cartoons mocking Islam after all that happened around the world ?"

The question was not, "do you love Islam".

And I hate Islam because it Talks violently about us , Anyway I support cartoons mocking islam any time .

 

[sandandfoam]

And I hate Islam because it Talks violently about us , Anyway I support cartoons mocking islam any time .

Actually Islam repsects 'people of the Book'.
What is Islam apart from it's followers? As I understand it there are more than a billion followers. That sounds like a lot of people to hate.

I don't understand why anyone would seek to/glory in intentionally offending another.

I see that you follow Judaism, a religion which I respect. I can't imagine anyone believes in a God who fosters hate in the hearts of His followers - do you?

 

[idav]

The person who killed someone of course is the first responsable.
But the one who provocated him share a part of responsability. Because he knew it was possible that some people are killed.

Influence is not responsibility. Individuals are only responsible for the choice they make themselves not the choices of others. Civil protests normally bring out some bad blood but it doesn't make a protest wrong.

Those countries are all in turmoil allowing facebook, youtube and South Park to control their anger issues.:sarcastic

 

[Caladan]

There is no way that developed countries should censor themselves and their political satires. This would mean the death of decades of social and political development. People should keep writing, painting, and directing as they always have within the frame of law.

 

[HonestJoe]

Actually, I believe the point you were trying to make is that if I write an op-ed piece that says "This Is What Muhammed Looks Like, and Here's His Six Year Old Wife, Whom He Deflowered" I can expect an attack, and instaed should keep my mouth shut. Or did I miss the point?

Yes, you missed the point.

You have freedom of speech. That means you are free to write such an article but it also means you're equally free not to write it and equally free to write it in a less aggressive and intentionally offensive manner.

Because you have this freedom, you are responsible for the consequences of your choice. If you know (or have good reason to suspect) that writing such an article will lead to violent acts but you choose to write it anyway, you are responsible for those violent acts. The people who actually commit them are also responsible of course, but that is distinct from yours.

You are entitled to argue that any negative consequences of your actions are outweighed by the positive ones (or the negative ones of not doing it) but it a positive argument that needs to be made for that. You can't use the concept of "free speech" to simply dismiss it.

 

[Wirey]

Yes, you missed the point.

You have freedom of speech. That means you are free to write such an article but it also means you're equally free not to write it and equally free to write it in a less aggressive and intentionally offensive manner.

Because you have this freedom, you are responsible for the consequences of your choice. If you know (or have good reason to suspect) that writing such an article will lead to violent acts but you choose to write it anyway, you are responsible for those violent acts. The people who actually commit them are also responsible of course, but that is distinct from yours.

You are entitled to argue that any negative consequences of your actions are outweighed by the positive ones (or the negative ones of not doing it) but it a positive argument that needs to be made for that. You can't use the concept of "free speech" to simply dismiss it.

I can say any damn fool thing I want and your right to be offended ends before your fist hits my nose. Sorry, disagreement is not justification for murder. Hell, it's not justification for a kick in the shins.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is it irresponsable or do you think that "people have to show they are not afraid of extremists ?" Like the journal says.

I believe it is irresponsible to not show them we are not afraid.

Let them rise above it and become better people or violently destroy their own cities, either way the world will be a better place.

Too bad it seems unlikely foreign policy will ever realize that.

 

[Draka]

You know, I was thinking about this yesterday and an idea struck me. It is one thing if the only one culpable for our actions is ourselves, but if we know that our actions/words have the potential to affect others completely unrelated to us, do we have a responsibility to curb ourselves, regardless of freedom of speech?

Now, I know that it is, on one hand, absurd to think that we should have to bend over for people who act like juvenile children throwing temper-tantrums. And let's face it, that's what's going on here only on a far greater scale with weapons and bombs and fists and fire. But picture for a moment:

Who is to blame for the massive hornet attack on the group of children in the playground? The hornets or the person from across the street, a safe distance away, who fired a rock into a hornets' nest in the middle of the playground? They knew when they pitched that rock that it would stir up the hornets. The hornets were only doing what came naturally to them.

Now, we don't like the behavior, it is inexcusable, and there must be something done within the Muslim community to stop the extreme radical behavior of certain groups. Like removing the hornets nest safely from the playground. Until that can be done, wouldn't it be perhaps safest to work with the moderate Muslims in figuring out how to decrease the radicals AND not poke them with sticks and rocks in the meantime? Quit stirring up the hornets as the case may be?

 

[Father Heathen]

There is no way that developed countries should censor themselves and their political satires. This would mean the death of decades of social and political development. People should keep writing, painting, and directing as they always have within the frame of law.

Exactly this. Find something offensive? Too damn bad. That's life. Learn to deal with it like a civilized adult.

 

[Draka]

Exactly this. Find something offensive? Too damn bad. That's life. Learn to deal with it like a civilized adult.

Some aren't learning though, obviously. Because of a lack of certain civilized ideas in certain cultures and areas, or at least what we would consider civilized. Perhaps the road lay in helping to teach rather than in throwing in the face and saying "deal with it" all the time?

 

[waitasec]

The "Charlie Hebo" a french satiric journal did some cartoons today about the Prophet Muhammad.

People rushed to buy it. It's a real "success". Like it was the last time they published the cartoons of the danish cartoonist.
The difference is that the danish cartoons showed a violent prophet and the french cartoons show let's say someting more sexual.

Just that you know they always have sexual cartoons. If you make a research on google you'll see what kind of journal it is.


Do you think it's more about freedom of speech or for money ?

Is it irresponsable or do you think that "people have to show they are not afraid of extremists ?" Like the journal says.

After what happen with Mohammed Merah, i think it's really stupid.

Your opinion ? Did others countries did the same ?

Here what says a dirigeant of the Muslims brotherhood (Essam El Erian) :

"If Kate's case (the british princess) is a question of private life*, caricatures are an insult for all a people. Beliefs of others must be respected."
He's against any violence from the muslims, but he thinks they have the right to protest pacifically

*The french Tabloïd "Closer" published photos of Kate Middleton half naked.

Le Figaro - Flash Actu : Charlie Hebdo: ractions en gypte

religion is just an opinion, get over it's undue importance

 

[HonestJoe]

I can say any damn fool thing I want and your right to be offended ends before your fist hits my nose. Sorry, disagreement is not justification for murder. Hell, it's not justification for a kick in the shins.

How can I make this any clearer? I'm not justifying anything (hence my specific statement that the people committing the violent acts are responsible for them too).

The fact remains that if you do something that you know will cause that kind of reaction, you are also responsible. Intentionally lighting the fuse of a thugs short temper is no better than lighting the fuse on a bomb.

 

[freethinker44]

Who is to blame for the massive hornet attack on the group of children in the playground? The hornets or the person from across the street, a safe distance away, who fired a rock into a hornets' nest in the middle of the playground? They knew when they pitched that rock that it would stir up the hornets. The hornets were only doing what came naturally to them.

Your analogy isn't exactly right. There is a big difference between a group of intelligent humans and swarm of mindless insects. And there is a difference between physically attacking a hive and mocking a character in a book. They had no right to act the way they did; they are murderers, plain and simple and deserve no sympathy.