Terrorist attack in Paris

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
DreamCrusade

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by DreamCrusade » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:41 pm

But you still ended up an edgy tryhard.

User avatar
False
COOL DUDE
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by False » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:44 pm

Hey, we win some, we lose some.

Image
User avatar
CuriousOyster
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Glasgow

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by CuriousOyster » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:20 pm

All religion is written by humans and therefore bullshit #FactsOnly

User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Stugene » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:30 pm

[iup=3653729]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:Which Christians believe that Jesus is the God and not the messenger? Surely none. He's just the big guy's kid.


You're just trolling at this point. You must understand the concept of the Holy Trinity and how Jesus is consubstantial with God's divinity and consubstantial with mortals in the physical world. Jesus, the Holy Spirit and God are one and the same in the mainstream, orthodox sects of Christianity. Jesus is not just the son of God, he is the physical manifestation of God on Earth - hence why his prophecy is considered to be divine. "Each is God, whole and entire".

Although, according to Wikipedia, you could belong to one of the "wacky" churches. Do you belong to the following?

Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah's Witnesses, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians, the United Church of God and the Church of God (Seventh Day).

Image
Taint
User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Stugene » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:31 pm

[iup=3653775]CuriousOyster[/iup] wrote:All religion is written by humans and therefore bullshit #FactsOnly


How does that arguement tie up with other books written by people?

Image
Taint
User avatar
Pedz
Twitch Team
Joined in 2009
Contact:

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Pedz » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:42 pm

DreamCrusade wrote:Image


Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.


http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/9/charlie-hebdo-not-exactly-a-model-of-freedom-of-speech


And Dblock, no one cares about what you care about. Your parents are scum, and so is your messenger.


No need to go calling the guys parents scum dude.

Image
User avatar
CuriousOyster
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Glasgow

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by CuriousOyster » Tue Jan 13, 2015 6:58 pm

[iup=3653785]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3653775]CuriousOyster[/iup] wrote:All religion is written by humans and therefore bullshit #FactsOnly


How does that arguement tie up with other books written by people?


Lord of the Rings also didn't really happen. Or did it?!

Science etc can be proven (eventually) and is not a nice fabricated story.

User avatar
Shadow
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Shadow » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:49 pm

This is the cover of the new Charlie Hebdo, pretty sombre really.

Image

I suppose they had to do this.

Pinched from TIME.

User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Eighthours » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:11 pm

[iup=3653745]Falsey[/iup] wrote:In my defence I was really interested in religious theory and history at school. I figured Id at least learn about these things so I can formulate a real opinion rather than be an edgy tryhard.


Sex education not the best at your school, then? :D

User avatar
Dandy Kong
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Dandy Kong

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Dandy Kong » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:37 pm

Charlie Hebdo didn't 'attack' Islam or 'had it in' for Muslims. They mock everything an everyone, religious figures, politicians, writers, ...

I think we need that, jesters to whom nothing is sacred. To help put things in perspective.

Except for those to whom all perspective is lost, clearly.

Image
User avatar
False
COOL DUDE
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by False » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:42 pm

[iup=3653951]Eighthours[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3653745]Falsey[/iup] wrote:In my defence I was really interested in religious theory and history at school. I figured Id at least learn about these things so I can formulate a real opinion rather than be an edgy tryhard.


Sex education not the best at your school, then? :D


I dont think you know what edgy means. We cant all be extra marital handholders.

Image
User avatar
Lotus
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Lotus » Tue Jan 13, 2015 10:43 pm

Surely the fact that nobody knows what Mohammed (or Jesus) looks like makes any depiction of him purely a work of someone's imagination. I'd have thought that would be even less 'offensive' than if there was an actual likeness being lampooned and ridiculed.

Anyway, I notice the bodies were still warm and Cameron was, along with others, already demanding new spying powers. :fp:

Despite the fact that the authorities knew the perpetrators and did nothing (or could do nothing), as with the Lee Rigby case, yes, even more spying that will largely affect innocent people is the answer. :fp:

User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Stugene » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:21 pm

[iup=3653808]CuriousOyster[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3653785]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3653775]CuriousOyster[/iup] wrote:All religion is written by humans and therefore bullshit #FactsOnly


How does that arguement tie up with other books written by people?


Lord of the Rings also didn't really happen. Or did it?!

Science etc can be proven (eventually) and is not a nice fabricated story.


Under your argument, a textbook on mathematics was written by a human, and is therefore bullshit.

Your argument is:

1. All humans lie
2. The bible was written by humans
3. Therefore the bible is a lie

When a far more concise argument is that the centuries of chinese whispers and numerous translations have rendered the Bible so far from it's source material that it would be difficult to even tell if the Bible itself is firstly, accurate and secondly, divine.

[iup=3653975]Lotus[/iup] wrote:Surely the fact that nobody knows what Mohammed (or Jesus) looks like makes any depiction of him purely a work of someone's imagination. I'd have thought that would be even less 'offensive' than if there was an actual likeness being lampooned and ridiculed.


I don't know what your Grandad looks like, but if I drew a picture of him with a cock for a head you probably wouldn't like it.

But thats not the point. The point is the difference between Idolatry in Islam and Christianity. Christianity accepts depictions of Christ and God as showing their devotion to the Lord and his work. There could be no greater way to celebrate the Lord than to depict Him using your greatest artists. Displaying God as a man is in-line with Christian beliefs about the Trinity and the consubstantial nature of Christ.

Islam does not have that component. Muhammad is not the same as Jesus is in Christianity. Muhammad is a prophet, similar to Moses - but far more important. As such, it is his prophecies that matter, not the man. Also, Islam is monotheistic. As such, Allah is the one you worship - Muhammad is simply a messenger. Islam forbids depictions Muhammad as it places further descriptions upon him that the scriptures themselves do not hold. It is called Shirk, which is giving precedence to the descriptions of others rather than those which hold true only to Allah. A depiction of Muhammad would not make his prophecy any more important. As such, it is considered a sin to depict him. I don't think that's too hard to understand. I also don't think its too hard to not depict Muhammad. It does nothing except make people unhappy.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Dblock
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Discovery

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Dblock » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:54 pm

[iup=3653793]Pedz[/iup] wrote:
DreamCrusade wrote:Image


Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.


http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/9/charlie-hebdo-not-exactly-a-model-of-freedom-of-speech


And Dblock, no one cares about what you care about. Your parents are scum, and so is your messenger.


No need to go calling the guys parents scum dude.


:lol:

I wonder who it is :dread:

''Saying it's because I was controlling you and making you sad when actually I just asked you to wear some trousers'' :lol: :lol:
User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by That » Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:13 am

Stugene: You're quite right: depicting Muhammad is insensitive.

It is perhaps worth noting, however, that a multitude of cultures hold certain symbols or ideas sacred, and in each of them there are people who may be offended should those ideas be treated disrespectfully.

I would cautiously argue that some points may be worth being insensitive to make - while of course acknowledging that others aren't.

I do feel that when you attempt to use a threat of violence to limit which ideas can be expressed, you inevitably create the will in others to defy that limit. At the moment it seems to me that Charlie Hebdo are depicting Muhammad as a way of saying, "your violence doesn't frighten us". Do you feel that's a point worth making?

Image
User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Stugene » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:30 am

[iup=3654017]Karl[/iup] wrote:Stugene: You're quite right: depicting Muhammad is insensitive.

It is perhaps worth noting, however, that a multitude of cultures hold certain symbols or ideas sacred, and in each of them there are people who may be offended should those ideas be treated disrespectfully.

I would cautiously argue that some points may be worth being insensitive to make - while of course acknowledging that others aren't.

I do feel that when you attempt to use a threat of violence to limit which ideas can be expressed, you inevitably create the will in others to defy that limit. At the moment it seems to me that Charlie Hebdo are depicting Muhammad as a way of saying, "your violence doesn't frighten us". Do you feel that's a point worth making?


It's a point which can be made without further insulting people, simply because they can.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Snowcannon
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Snowcannon » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:00 am

[iup=3654038]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3654017]Karl[/iup] wrote:Stugene: You're quite right: depicting Muhammad is insensitive.

It is perhaps worth noting, however, that a multitude of cultures hold certain symbols or ideas sacred, and in each of them there are people who may be offended should those ideas be treated disrespectfully.

I would cautiously argue that some points may be worth being insensitive to make - while of course acknowledging that others aren't.

I do feel that when you attempt to use a threat of violence to limit which ideas can be expressed, you inevitably create the will in others to defy that limit. At the moment it seems to me that Charlie Hebdo are depicting Muhammad as a way of saying, "your violence doesn't frighten us". Do you feel that's a point worth making?


It's a point which can be made without further insulting people, simply because they can.


The point is made most effectively in the way they did it though.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Moggy » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:57 am

[iup=3654038]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3654017]Karl[/iup] wrote:Stugene: You're quite right: depicting Muhammad is insensitive.

It is perhaps worth noting, however, that a multitude of cultures hold certain symbols or ideas sacred, and in each of them there are people who may be offended should those ideas be treated disrespectfully.

I would cautiously argue that some points may be worth being insensitive to make - while of course acknowledging that others aren't.

I do feel that when you attempt to use a threat of violence to limit which ideas can be expressed, you inevitably create the will in others to defy that limit. At the moment it seems to me that Charlie Hebdo are depicting Muhammad as a way of saying, "your violence doesn't frighten us". Do you feel that's a point worth making?


It's a point which can be made without further insulting people, simply because they can.


I don’t know if you watch the Channel 4 show “The Last Leg” but they covered this and said that they were not going to show any of the cartoons as they did not want to offend any innocent people (or more likely Channel 4 wouldn’t let them ;) ). I think that’s fair enough.

With Charlie Hebdo, however offensive they were nobody ever deserves to die over a drawing. They have decided to print more cartoons in an act of defiance (or more likely a big strawberry float you ;) ). I think that’s fair enough.

User avatar
Rocsteady
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by Rocsteady » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:14 am

Snowcannon wrote:
[iup=3654038]Stugene[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3654017]Karl[/iup] wrote:Stugene: You're quite right: depicting Muhammad is insensitive.

It is perhaps worth noting, however, that a multitude of cultures hold certain symbols or ideas sacred, and in each of them there are people who may be offended should those ideas be treated disrespectfully.

I would cautiously argue that some points may be worth being insensitive to make - while of course acknowledging that others aren't.

I do feel that when you attempt to use a threat of violence to limit which ideas can be expressed, you inevitably create the will in others to defy that limit. At the moment it seems to me that Charlie Hebdo are depicting Muhammad as a way of saying, "your violence doesn't frighten us". Do you feel that's a point worth making?


It's a point which can be made without further insulting people, simply because they can.


The point is made most effectively in the way they did it though.

Yep.

At this stage there was no question whether they would carry another image of Muhammed. Their cover's reasonably tasteful imo, apart from the shite drawing style. I think it would have been almost insulting to those killed if they were now to shy away from printing an image of the prophet as they have done numerous times in the past.

Image
User avatar
captain red dog
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol, UK

PostRe: Terrorist attack in Paris
by captain red dog » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:14 am

When you think about it though, there was that picture going around last week with the conservative "road" slogan over a picture of Auschwitz. People were offended by that and generally it's seen as taboo even though it was satire. I guess it's where you draw the line. This whole "I'm offended" culture has just gone nuts in my opinion.


Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dowbocop, ITSMILNER, Lagamorph, Lex-Man, Met, more heat than light and 401 guests