Three terrorists murder 12 people at the offices of French magazine

A question occurs to me. We all agree these three men should be held accountable for being unable to follow society's laws.

Should the company also be held responsible for being intolerant - and intentionally, repetitively, disrepectful - towards an entire culture simply because they don't like it?

If we're talking about respect among human beings, the answer seems obvious to me. The punishment should fit the crime, of course. But I think this is an example, a horrifically painful example, of how to use free speech irresponsibly.

Edit: Reading over again, my post seems insensitive, given the number of families that have been torn apart this week. But I do think that, given the gravity of the situation, we have to ask tough questions. There are a lot of roles to be played in ending this cycle of violence before it gets even worse.

I've read the front page of yesterday's issue of my local newspaper, & there was an article on there that say that those three people have been slain by the French security. Unfortunately, they've managed to kill at least four more hostages beforehand, not to mention that there is a fourth suspect, which happens to be a common law wife of (one of) the attackers. If so, I'd like to see her in captivity.

As for the other three who died, rest in pieces, you overzealous S.O.B's! You will not be missed by all the sane people in this world.

Blade_of_darkness said:

As for the other three who died, rest in pieces, you overzealous S.O.B's! You will not be missed by all the sane people in this world.

Click to expand...

I don't think violent extremists are insane. I think they see a different world than peaceful, moderate people do. And I think that as long as both sides demonize the other, and only acknowledge what is wrong with the other, that the conflict will continue. And probably worsen.

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at the pictures of their faces, and to realize that we're all struggling to learn how to coexist. And not just in this situation, but in any conflict of ideals. I am only human. You are only human. They are only human. We are only human. We all are human.

That's how I feel; well, on a good day at least. I've had my share of bad, many of which are documented in this forum. But we can all learn and grow, even a little, even the worst of us.

Tek said:

Should the company also be held responsible for being intolerant - and intentionally, repetitively, disrepectful - towards an entire culture simply because they don't like it?

Click to expand...

People have dignity. Ideas don't have dignity. Individual humans deserve respect. Religions and cultures don't. As long as they don't promote violence against the individual followers of those ideas, it should be free game for everyone. I'll respect a person who believes in X, but if I think X is the insanest nonsense I have ever heard, I should have the right to say so, even if it hurts the person's feelings. And, of course, the person should have the right to talk back and defend their beliefs. And, who knows, maybe we'll learn something from that.

But, by making everything "sacred" and banning jokes about everything, we are putting some people's feelings before public discourse. A free society should be able to talk about everything, not the opposite. Again, the limit is advocating violence against people- but Charlie Hebdo has never asked their readers to go beat up muslims, as far as I know, and the only people dead over the whole issue are the cartoonists themselves.

Incidentally, they also have been equally disrespectful against Christians and against all politicians in the past 30 years- is mocking them okay, but mocking Islam isn't? Should we ban any criticism of anything ever?

Went said:

People have dignity. Ideas don't have dignity. Individual humans deserve respect. Religions and cultures don't.

Click to expand...

Equal respect for all human life, respect for individuals, is itself a cultural idea. And one that is not shared by violent extremists. If people don't have to respect each other's ideals you literally have no ground to oppose what those guys did, because our laws are dependent of our cultural views.

Well, I suppose we could oppose those killings based on blood ties, kinship lineage - concrete objects that don't require symbolic thought. That's what we're reduced to if we're not going to respect ideas and values. Somehow I don't believe you really think that way.

What you are actually saying in the above quote is that they should respect your culture and ideals, while you don't have to reciprocate. In most situations, that's perfectly fine. In this situation, it's precisely that attitude which led to a bloody and gruesome conflict. So should we really keep acting in this way, or should we start being more mature about this?

But, by making everything "sacred" and banning jokes about everything, we are putting some people's feelings before public discourse. A free society should be able to talk about everything, not the opposite.

Click to expand...

It's not about making anything sacred. You're either misunderstanding me or intentionally taking my view to an extreme end in order to disagree with it.

I'm talking about having some respect for what others hold sacred. That's the issue at hand, yes? Respect and civility? Why should that only apply to those who don't agree with you?

Incidentally, they also have been equally disrespectful against Christians and against all politicians in the past 30 years- is mocking them okay, but mocking Islam isn't? Should we ban any criticism of anything ever?

Click to expand...

Okay now I'm pretty sure you're intentionally taking my view to an obviously unreasonable extreme. I do not think, and did not say, that no one should criticize anything. Were that my view, I wouldn't have said anything at all, would I? Please be more reasonable.

Tek said:

A question occurs to me. We all agree these three men should be held accountable for being unable to follow society's laws.

Should the company also be held responsible for being intolerant - and intentionally, repetitively, disrepectful - towards an entire culture simply because they don't like it?

If we're talking about respect among human beings, the answer seems obvious to me. The punishment should fit the crime, of course. But I think this is an example, a horrifically painful example, of how to use free speech irresponsibly.

Edit: Reading over again, my post seems insensitive, given the number of families that have been torn apart this week. But I do think that, given the gravity of the situation, we have to ask tough questions. There are a lot of roles to be played in ending this cycle of violence before it gets even worse.

Click to expand...

That's a terrible stance. It's a satirical magazine and pokes fun at numerous topics. If you don't allow publication of something because you're afraid it might offend someone that limits free speech.

This article is for you:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute

Definition of Satire said:

The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Click to expand...

On one hand, Charlie Hebdo repeatedly used racist, nasty and demeaning depictions of Mohammed in their cartoons. Yes, it's largely insensitive and not in the best of taste...

...why anybody would read an editorial like Charlie Hebdo and expect anything else is beyond me. That's the entire point of satire - nothing is sacred, when it comes to satire, and nothing should be. Fundamentalism fears free speech and expression, and that's why the extremists chose to attack Charlie Hebdo. Like the above article about Salman Rushdie - freedom is indivisible, and once you carve it up, it ceases to be freedom. Let's not allow religious extremism from a few to take away more freedoms from the many.

The freedom to do whatever you want and and disregard how it affects other people is one we have to give up to live in a civilized world.

Lotus the Cat said:

That's a terrible stance. It's a satirical magazine and pokes fun at numerous topics. If you don't allow publication of something because you're afraid it might offend someone that limits free speech.

This article is for you:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-hebdo-freedom-of-speech-can-only-be-absolute

Click to expand...

If one of my kids intentionally picks a fight, and the other one punches him, then I'm holding them both responsible for the situation that they created together. If that's terrible to you, then I'm ok with being a terrible person in your eyes.

Now, as to the article you posted. "Freedom is indivisible," once said Kennedy and Mandela. With respect to the arts, we should take everything to the extreme end, says Rushdie.

What about taking freedom itself to the extreme end? I wonder if the five of us would all agree with this:

We should all be free to be at whatever level of development we find ourselves, and not have to be ridiculed, ostracized, attacked, and otherwise persecuted because others, looking from their worldview, perceive our worldview to be incorrect.

It's a new concept, developmental rights. But in my opinion, we'll be fortunate if and when it becomes a big deal.

Livewire said:

On one hand, Charlie Hebdo repeatedly used racist, nasty and demeaning depictions of Mohammed in their cartoons. Yes, it's largely insensitive and not in the best of taste...

...why anybody would read an editorial like Charlie Hebdo and expect anything else is beyond me. That's the entire point of satire - nothing is sacred, when it comes to satire, and nothing should be. Fundamentalism fears free speech and expression, and that's why the extremists chose to attack Charlie Hebdo. Like the above article about Salman Rushdie - freedom is indivisible, and once you carve it up, it ceases to be freedom. Let's not allow religious extremism from a few to take away more freedoms from the many.

Click to expand...

Let's not allow religious extremism from a few to take away from the freedoms of the many. Let's also not allow the predispositions of the many make our world inhospitable to the few.

Your stance is essentially the same as Went's: modern society pursuing freedom only for its own particular set of values. If freedom is indivisible, we need to stop dividing it up rational freedoms and non-rational freedoms. It is possible to have freedom for both modern society and religious extremists, and people of every stage of development, but not if we keep doing the same things we've always done.

I'm not advocating new limits on speech to be imposed from without. I'm advocating a respectful attitude coming from within. And more to the point, I'm advocating both sides stop expecting that the other see things their way.

Because that's what satire comes from, pointing out how wrong another person is. But it is not wrong to be at a level of development in which God or Allah or Jehovah is your beloved Holy Father, and everything that comes with that particular stage of understanding. And if we really accepted that it is okay to think in that way, we'd have no reason to satirize such thinking.

The bombings have the same objective, to punish those who disagree. Which is why I say again, both sides are doing the same thing they've always done, and we're getting farther and farther from a solution.

I think I can defend my right to say Mohammad wore a funny hat and even draw funny pictures of him. I believe that the few antisocial radicals do not realize that the rest of the world is pretty much fed up with their stupid antics. If we took a poll to see who is in favor of quashing their little organization we'd have a majority vote to remove them from power, forcefully. I still think the Russians should have at them.

They don't realize how small they are and if they continually do this it not only hurts them, but harms the other more peaceful practitioners of their faith. If they keep this up, I don't see how the Muslim faith can remain impartial or neutral even if those that practice it are peaceful or not. Something about it seems to be interpreted as the new 15th century Christianity: kill those that disagree.

I for one am not ashamed to say I believe in none of the above and can't wait to see what our race as a whole can accomplish when we realize this. I'm not forceful, but patient. Like the '7-11 employee waiting for you to figure out you need .25 more cents to pay for your Slurpee' type of patience that makes you feel stupid afterwards.

I was going to make a joke about Stalin's mustache and how it would be laughing but decided not to.

Tek said:

Let's not allow religious extremism from a few to take away from the freedoms of the many. Let's also not allow the predispositions of the many make our world inhospitable to the few.

Your stance is essentially the same as Went's: modern society pursuing freedom only for its own particular set of values. If freedom is indivisible, we need to stop dividing it up rational freedoms and non-rational freedoms. It is possible to have freedom for both modern society and religious extremists, and people of every stage of development, but not if we keep doing the same things we've always done.

I'm not advocating new limits on speech to be imposed from without. I'm advocating a respectful attitude coming from within. And more to the point, I'm advocating both sides stop expecting that the other see things their way.

Because that's what satire comes from, pointing out how wrong another person is. But it is not wrong to be at a level of development in which God or Allah or Jehovah is your beloved Holy Father, and everything that comes with that particular stage of understanding. And if we really accepted that it is okay to think in that way, we'd have no reason to satirize such thinking.

The bombings have the same objective, to punish those who disagree. Which is why I say again, both sides are doing the same thing they've always done, and we're getting farther and farther from a solution.

Click to expand...

I think the distinction needs to be made in this case as to what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is. If they were a typical news/opinion/political outlet, one that is supposed to report facts and keep people informed of issues, then the publications depicting mohammed and Islam in a poor light would be crass and inappropriate. But that's not what Charlie Hebdo is. Part of having freedom of expression is that sometimes people can say deplorable things, but freedom of expression is freedom of expression. (Rushdie's absolutism) They have a right to express it. But what's more inappropriate is to essentially blame the editors of Charlie Hebdo for their part in this so-called situation they "created together" with Al-Quada. When the response to "offensive" editorial cartoons published in a satirical new outlet is to murder 12 people in cold blood in the name of religious fundamentalism, the fault lies with the extremists and them alone. It cannot be tolerated, and should not be. And if being intolerant of acts of hatred thinly-veiled in religious fervor makes me a bad person, then a bad person I will happily be.

Now i'm not saying that it should be a free for all and individual freedoms should be trumping those of collective society/civilization. We should be respectful of people's ideas and beliefs. But we should be mindful and respectful of rational discourse and the millions of Muslims, Jews, and everyone else who condemned the attacks, not the extremists who killed people.

Let me make my position very clear. Charlie Hebdo should never be held accountable for Al Qaeda's actions. Charlie Hebdo should always be held accountable for Charlie Hebdo's actions.

I may respond in greater detail after I calm down and get some sleep. I need a little distance from this to see it more clearly.

I hope these freaks get put in prison.