Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative. "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.
Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.
.... but their lack of outrage at these barbaric behaviours seems to be a growing part of the problem?
Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative. "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.
Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.
Is the prophet and his God so powerless that they need a couple of duped savage animals to act as proxies on Earth to kill to defend their honour? Of course these latest murders in France are all about Islam and its teachings. This is plainly obvious to all but fearful, politically correct moral cowards who on one hand pay lip service to free speech and expression but then label criticism (and satire) of religion (specifically Islam) as confrontational and a provocation. Then these fearful cowards draft laws limiting speech so as to not offend believers in imaginary Gods and their self-proclaimed prophets. This follows the playbook of religious extremists who use fear to manipulate the freedoms in western societies.Yes, I hate that attitude, it is summed up well here, I think Jaclyn is spot on,
Several callers, including one young Muslim woman, to an ABC Radio program on the Paris situation last night started off with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." and then proceeded to blame the publication for being provocative. "They should be more respectful" said one earnest bloke.
Much more of similar.
Smacks of "The United States brought it on themselves" following 9.11.
Particularly when aided by a d**khead of a presenter offering encouragement. Way to go, ABCIt is diffcult not to think that this type of comment simply highlights the underlying doctrinal affiliation of the caller and ipso facto their ideological support for the act.
These are the kind of things that are let through to the keeper without challenge far to often.
Pressure is mounting against a planned speaking tour by American anti-vaccination campaigner Sherri Tenpenny, with at least one venue now cancelling a seminar.
Dr Tenpenny, an osteopath who believes vaccines cause autism, asthma, ADHD and auto-immune disorders, is planning a series of lectures against vaccination in March aimed at parents of babies.
But she has been criticised by the Stop The Australian Anti-Vaccination Network for "endangering people's health" and "targeting vulnerable parents".
Kareela Golf and Social Club in Sydney has cancelled a seminar, while a group of doctors cancelled their own workshop at a Melbourne venue, angry the place had also booked Dr Tenpenny next month.
I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.
The CH cartoonists seem to be lacking in talent and have to resort to toilet humour to make up for their shortcomings.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/bjmir4cbrhsrfdwzxiux.png
Freedom of speech is a myth. The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.
We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.
Are we guilty of being hypocritical in our clamour for free speech?
You must mean cowardly, fearful and muzzled cartoonists who don't poke fun and people like yourself for taking the fiction in magic books seriously for fear of death.The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.
Dancing on the graves of the dead cartoonists already! Those poor cartoonists (RIP) deserve some respect in death, even from the likes of you. As an ambassador for religious nonsense here, you should at least be capable of some shred of dignity and decency by condemning cold, calculated murder.We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.
I suppose I should also start with the predictable "of course I'm not condoning violence, but....." ... I followed a link to a page that showed some of the cartoons with English translations, and if that's what the French regard as humour, then I don't think much of French humour!
http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168
Satire is supposed to be clever and witty. Most of those "cartoons" are simply puerile rubbish.
The CH cartoonists seem to be lacking in talent and have to resort to toilet humour to make up for their shortcomings.
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...ogressive,q_80,w_636/bjmir4cbrhsrfdwzxiux.png
Freedom of speech is a myth. The West enjoys freer speech than most of the rest of the world, but with that freedom comes the responsibility to exercise it wisely, and intelligent cartoonists understand that.
We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known. We're better off without idiots like that.
In terms of Charlie Hebdo, I see no reason to deliberately offend people, however freedom of speech includes that right.
Perhaps if Muslims were subject to retaliation and others used the same argument against them, they may have a different view.
We all have to try and live together harmoniously and I have no sympathy for so called "artists" who set out to be as offensive as possible to others to get themselves known.We're better off without idiots like that
Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.
Reporting live on CNN, Wolf Blitzer accused Charlie Hebdo of occasionally going “over the line” in their satirical criticisms of current events.
The comment came as Blitzer was detailing the Islamic terrorist attack against the Charlie Hebdo office, which resulted in the deaths of 10 staff members and two police officers.
Blitzer categorically slammed the attacks and said there was no justification for it. However, in detailing what Charlie Hebdo is known for, he added that, at times, they went “over the line” in their commentary.
What “line” is that and who determines where the line is?
As for your comment, its absolutely atrocious.
Value Collector said:Religions need to be made fun of, they get enough unearned respect, I think its healthy to be able to poke fun at their silly ideas. if more people laughed at them from the start we wouldn't be in this mess.
The reality is that there are people around who make an art form of being offensive to get noticed, which is what I think Chris45 was saying..
actually I think, in the context of this discussion, that is what he is doing
... no!therefore understand how some idiots are offended to the point that they want it suppressed by slaughtering the creators.
... So, racial vilification like calling blacks n**g**s, boongs etc, and obscene behaviour like people copulating in public in front of children, and so on ... these behaviours are all acceptable to you are they? That's certainly not the sort of society I want to live in.I don't think people have a right to "not be offended" by anything in life ... If you get offended by certain things, it may actually be something which you have to work on yourself.
... yes, AND the offensive and obnoxious anti-religious idiots.We are better off without the religious Idiots.
What "fact" would that be exactly?I'm sure he can speak for himself, but imo he was just stating a fact.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?