NYCmetsfan
Banned
The security will be insane now. It didn't sound like they had much more than one guy recently.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Terror attack kills 12 at Paris newspaper - 4 wounded, gunmen identified
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
- Status
The security will be insane now. It didn't sound like they had much more than one guy recently.
ComputerMKII
Banned
I've never heard of them before but that made me laugh. That's the spirit!
Well, for what it's worth, a Frenchman didn't write that. It's just the mentality of the UK.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Je suis Charlie
Vampirolol
Member
You have my infinite respect. Good luck with your battle!
ConanTheKing
Member
Heck even Ayn Rand agreed that it is a form of philosophy and so does the Oxford Dictionary:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/philosophy?searchDictCode=all
That is simply false. I dont know if the points made genuinely flew over your head or if you are simply being intellectually dishonest. If anything, the term bigoted better described Affleck in that interview.
Psychotext
Member
ComputerMKII
Banned
Man, that's fucking depressing.
Miles Quaritch
Member
One idiot in the UK. Don't lump everyone in what that dick.
Dictionary definitions are a terrible way to argue your point.
BossLackey
Gold Member
You must have been watching a different show to me then. 100%? Are you serious? They weren't saying that at all. In fact, if I recall correctly, they went to great lengths to assert that that is exactly what they weren't saying. What they were saying is that there is actually a grey area in the middle. They made it completely clear that extremist Islamic terrorists aren't representative of all Muslims, especially the moderates in western countries.
What they did argue though is that the "not representative of all Muslims" thing shouldn't be used to as an excuse to bury our heads in the sand and relativise Islamic extremism into a "non-issue". This is where Affleck completely missed the point and made an absolute tit out of himself.
The fact you can't even remember Sam Harris's name by the way makes me wonder how much effort you put into forming your view of that episode. FWIW I am not a Bill Maher fan. I think he is extremely lazy and base-level in his discourse but Sam Harris isn't just some random dial-a-quote for hire. Listen to what he says without inaccurate pre-conceptions.
I don't want to sound rude, but I have read this four times and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Sorry. :/
PS. I am not American.
Again, really not trying to be rude but I can not quite grasp what you are trying to say here. It's a confusing read.
I suspect you are trying to insinuate that I am somehow a hypocrite that is giving Christianity a blank pass. If so, I am not sure how someone who actually read my post could have reached that conclusion. As a secularist, I have a lot of issues with Christianity and its imposition on the political sphere. I wasn't aware however that in discussing one religion I had to discuss every other single one in the same post as a matter of fairness. There is a hell of a lot of them to cover.
Lucky I didn't do that then hey? I urge you to re-read my post.
What I did say is that there are a lot of ridiculous ideas in Islam, just as there are in Christianity and any other religion that treat ancient scriptures as unchallengable dogma. These were books written over a thousand years ago by warring bands of desert tribes. A lot of the ideas contained within simply aren't compatible with our modern society.
In a free society, we should be free to satirise and critique these ideas (note that is different from criticising the people who express them) without being called "bigots", and certainly without being slaughtered at gunpoint.
In short, it felt like your post was a response to a bunch of points I didn't make. Please read it again. I thought I was careful to establish a context which others seem to have understood clearly.
Because I don't have the obligation to. This /should not/ happen, ever, under any circumstance, I don't have to fucking google anything to feel offended as a human being when an animal massacre happens and voice my concerns due to perception, the same of millions (who have 't done research because, again, this shouldn't happen).
If only evil voices are heard then the good ones just haven't tried enough I think, one might argue they don't have the obligation either as they are acting correctly and shouldn't be held accountable for other people actions in which case I wouldn't agree as this guys are killing people in their name.
I really can't believe that people are still arguing the opposite... I'm assuming people just haven't watched the clip and are just joining in the hysteria.
Says the guy with a deadly caricature as his avatar. ;P
It's definitely worth endangering yourself because to do otherwise would be to live in chains.
I wouldn't think so. There is no shortage of cartoonists and journalists willing to defend freedom of press. Even more so after such a tragedy.
I really think the reaction (of the press, of the people) to all this isn't going to be what the killers expected. At all.
As a previous poster has noted, Mars intentions with the muslim community are apparent. I watched the segment. And there isn't much advancement coming from Mar or harris when it comes to the message. This is from the same man saying "The Muslim World Has Too Much In Common With Isis." Statistics aside, which can all be used for whatever point or book you want to sell, there wasn't anything to stagnate anti-islam/muslim sentiment, the segment was only a promotion of it.
He has a pretty clear agenda. As he has had in the past. I stopped watching his show due to his diversion into what seems to just be hate. And it just became less about important issues, and more shouting down people in a Morton Downey JR way. The Daily show is much more progressive and advances discussions further than Mars show.
things like:
“It’s the only religion that acts like the mafia that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, paint the wrong picture or write the wrong book”
Aren't a statistic, so stop hiding behind that bullshit. Comments were made, and mar has a history with it. I agree that you shouldn't make comments like that, about Islam. As did afleck, which doesn't make anyone a douchebag.
ComputerMKII
Banned
Le Gorafi's (French equivalent of The Onion) reaction: http://www.legorafi.fr/2015/01/07/monde-de-merde/
Ah, missed that bit. Still unnerving. Allowing a government access to all of your information all the time is the very definition of letting the terrorists win.
It's scary that a dictionary definition could be trying to take the meaning out of a word, instead of the opposite. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. That definition doesn't say what you think it says.
Philosophy is about wisdom, knowledge. Philosophy straight up condemns the dogma-based structure of any religion. Read up.
Lord Morairty007
Member
Fuck.....
King Tubby
Member
A tragedy on numerous fronts. This is going to do wonders for inter-religious relations in Europe.
What if you think they are both inherently bad? I wish we could do away with religion, or at least the wrongheaded fervor that leads people to desecrate their beliefs in the name of "defending" them.
When you are instilled with a belief that you will be rewarded in the eternal afterlife for barbaric acts in our actual life, your belief can justify any number of heinous crimes. The problem is not with Islam, it's with religion. Radical islam is simply the face of it now.
What if you think they are both inherently bad? I wish we could do away with religion, or at least the wrongheaded fervor that leads people to desecrate their beliefs in the name of "defending" them.
When you are instilled with a belief that you will be rewarded in the eternal afterlife for barbaric acts in our actual life, your belief can justify any number of heinous crimes. The problem is not with Islam, it's with religion. Radical islam is simply the face of it now.
BlazingDarkness
Member
Unlikely to fix anything. People would just radicalize over political or philosophical or economic ideals. I wonder how much difference taking the divine out of it would change.
Flintty
Member
Please refrain from speaking for the whole of the UK.
It's disgusting that the press are folding on this. The amount of times they fight courts etc. to preserve their 'freedom of speech' ( usually a celebrity scandal) yet the time has come to really lay it down but they are not, so far at least. Wankers.
In this case, there probably was some sort of misunderstanding; the only point I originally wanted to make is the one you quoted. I somehow understood your original post I quoted in the way that you wanted to say caricatures weren't the trigger that caused this attack. Apologies.
Nice edit.
I don't think we should look toward christianity as an example of where Islam should go be instead Judaism, as the extremes of their religion is just as stifling toward women. It's absolutely possible for reformation to come but I think in todays overtly connected world it's easier than ever to repress reform minded ideas through the echo-box of social media and state-sponsored media.
wat.
This is what you said
and a casual reading of news sites would have shown plenty of Islamic groups condemning this.
Yet somehow it's on everyone else to refute your point, not on you to back it up in the first place?
Or maybe dimwits like you are ignoring them because it fits your world view better to say "fuck all of them".
Get stuffed. And that 'reporter' should stand down from his position after admitting that.
Is it still bigotry if I think all organized religions are inherently bad? I'm not going to exclude Islam from that opinion because some of its members are big enough assholes to murder people over cartoons.
While I'm an atheist and find religious views to be problematic at times, I don't think banishing all religions would make violence and extremism disappear. People would just find something else to kill for. Before religion it was land. If not land it would be culture.
People inherently seem to be violent when they don't get what they want. Before social laws and order, violence is what you would default to get what you want. So I'm not sure how religion not existing would change this behavior. You could even argue that more people are peaceful because they have religion. It keeps them in check and makes life have a purpose for them. It makes them more likely to behave because they fear consequences for their actions beyond this life.
ComputerMKII
Banned
OK, this one is bittersweet:
"Oh no... not them..."
"Oh no... not them..."
Poohblaster
Member
Non violent protest is an admirable thing. Thank you for taking a stand.
Martin Sonneborn
I will not be lazy and translate, I will not be lazy and translate, I will not be lazy and translate. Only the lower part though:
"This is not funny. Threads to sue, cancelling a subscription or firing wildly with your Kalashnikow as a reaction to satire isn't really all that nice. Our compassion is with our french colleagues. This couldn't have happened at Titanic (the german satire magazine), we only have 6 editors."
Lord Morairty007
Member
Yea It is still how I truly feel but it was inappropriate to type. My emotions got the better of me.
I wouldn't ignore the only thing I want now. I say fuck the silent communities, if there are voicing communities that's what must be done and, even if I didn't know that (who am I anyway) did the right thing.
Well to start off:
[Affleck]
So hold on – are you the person who understands the officially codified doctrine of Islam? You are the interpreter of that.
[Sam Harris:]
What – I’m…
[Sam Harris:]
I’m actually well educated on this topic.
So Harris is saying that he knows what the true Islam is and then goes on to say
[Sam Harris:]
But Islam – Islam at the moment is the mother lode of bad ideas.
So Sam knows what the officially codified doctrine of Islam is and that additionally it is the mother lode of bad ideas and you don't think that paints all Muslims who think they're real believing Muslims with one giant stroke?
Especially when he goes on to say:
[Sam Harris:]
Let me just give you what you want. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who are nominal Muslims who don’t take the faith seriously, who don’t want to kill apostates, who are horrified by ISIS and we need to defend these people, prop them up and let them reform their faith.
So he's confirming this by going Reverse True Scotsman. Any Muslim who doesn't support ISIS IS NOT A TRUE MUSLIM and only a NOMINAL ONE THAT DOESN'T TAKE THE FAITH SERIOUSLY because of course everyone knows TRUE MUSLIMS are fucking insane.
Well I think of myself as a true Muslim and Sam Harris doesn't get to define what my faith is as he does and as everyone does who finds out I'm Muslim and starts making judgement calls about my mental state and what I do or do not believe before I've even had a chance to say anything or expects me to apologize for what these fucking attackers did in Paris as if I'm somehow responsible for it.
I condemned those bastards earlier in the thread because I hate their guts and everything they stand for but I shouldn't be in a situation where I'm EXPECTED to do so or else I'm somehow complicit in what they did.
If you think all are shit, you're being intellectually honest. And there is no problem there, technically, sure. By the definition of the word, its intolerant to those with differing opinions. But I'd hold nothing against you. When you highlight specifics of why A is bad, but B is doing just as egregious shit, including what your specifics are, it paints a picture of where you're coming from.
King Tubby
Member
I disagree. Obviously, there would still be violence and war and struggle in the world. That said, I do think that if you firmly believe that committing murder will exalt you and reward you in the afterlife, and this is something you hold with absolute certainty, it will drive you to commit terrible acts. This is not exclusive to any one religion but a natural logical consequence of many.
Zeouterlimits
Member
Monstrous act. Scary too, that they were able to pull it off.
Irish Equivalent had this: http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/01/07/satire-vows-not-to-negotiate-with-terrorists/
TimeEffect
Member
This is going to lead to a backlash of even more "Draw Muhammad" cartoons. Though not by the press, of course, which is unfortunate.
Are you unaware of the argument you mean to make? Here's the quote again:
"Belief in different fictional characters in stories from different books written long ago has led to the deaths of unknown numbers, millions of people, over the centuries, with people still being slaughtered every day because of these magical storybooks.
If this is not something that humanity can fearlessly disrespect, then what is?"
What does "well nothings perfect" mean in the context of the shit you've been saying? Maq made a case for the freedom to lampoon religious beliefs. You then argued that people also kill for non-religious motives. Which is true, and I said we're also free to lampoon those motives whatever they may be. Now you say, "Well, nothings perfect." What?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked