Paris: Charlie Hebdo shooting

VivaStPauli wrote:Yeah, I'm with BC and sportscy on this one, it really can't be that we live in a world where I have no fear writing that Jesus sucks dick in hell, and am reasonably afraid to say the same about a certain other prophet.

sportsczy wrote:That is a straw man my friend.  You have no idea what satire is... you need to read up on it.

Dante wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:I'm very conflicted about the amount of people standing in solidarity by drawing pictures of Muhammad. On the one hand I absolutely sympathize with the expression of individual rights. On the other, I feel like this is insulting to many ordinary Muslims who don't share anything with these jihadists and are just as much victims of them.

Jihad has lost its meaning with the so-called 'Muslims' that use Islam to kill and murder rape.

What's it's true meaning then? (genuine question)

El Shaarawy wrote:

Dante wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:


Jihad has lost its meaning with the so-called 'Muslims' that use Islam to kill and murder rape.

What's it's true meaning then? (genuine question)

Jihad means 'struggle' in arabic, in the religious sense, jihad has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam. Jihad is not a violent concept,
its not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Quran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

DuringTheWar wrote:Soo, does VivaStPaulis last post violate the first bullet point of the goallegacy user guidelines, or are we all free here to write whatever we want?

Guidelines wrote:Posting nudity, pornography, profanity, pictures containing profanity, vulgarity, hate speech, hostile comments or threats of violence or death, is strictly prohibited and will result in removal of offending posts and potential expulsion from the community.

VivaStPauli wrote:Yeah, I'm with BC and sportscy on this one, it really can't be that we live in a world where I have no fear writing that Jesus sucks dick in hell, and am reasonably afraid to say the same about a certain other prophet.

ACMRox wrote:Obviously this was not deserved and cannot be justified by blaming the writers. Nevertheless, I think the discussion following an event like this should be around combating extremism, integrating Muslims into society (keep in mind most people that do things like this, Muslim or otherwise, often feel isolated), and also stopping hate speech. The things in this magazine do not fall under freedom of speech because they were not legitimately expressing an opinion, they were meant only to incite hatred.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Meanwhile I'm pretty sure you just violated Discussion of Moderator Actions

DuringTheWar wrote:I wonder whether extremists tend to suffer from scrupulosity, just a thought Probably there is a psychological disposition involved

Dante wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:

Dante wrote:


What's it's true meaning then? (genuine question)

Jihad means 'struggle' in arabic, in the religious sense, jihad has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam. Jihad is not a violent concept,
its not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Quran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

I see. And how can anyone go from that to what they do?? Is the text THAT open to interpretation , or is it people just read what they like . Because , from what i read here and what Jihadists do, i see day and night. Probably a bigger difference.

I see struggle as you say , but that is struggle to exist and survive above anything else that isn't their religion. Working to inform people according to what the Jihadists do and say seems like working to show it's supposed power , which extremists represent through unspeakable acts , with the worst crimes. I could go on but anyway , you get the point , if that's Jihad you said there , then people must be reading something entirely different or i don't know what .

I always thought Jihad was religious war. Something like 'us' v infidels(people who believe something different) .

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:Soo, does VivaStPaulis last post violate the first bullet point of the goallegacy user guidelines, or are we all free here to write whatever we want?

Guidelines wrote:Posting nudity, pornography, profanity, pictures containing profanity, vulgarity, hate speech, hostile comments or threats of violence or death, is strictly prohibited and will result in removal of offending posts and potential expulsion from the community.

VivaStPauli wrote:Yeah, I'm with BC and sportscy on this one, it really can't be that we live in a world where I have no fear writing that Jesus sucks dick in hell, and am reasonably afraid to say the same about a certain other prophet.

The guidelines are enforced based on the mods' evaluation of the comments in their context. While what viva posted can be construed as offensive he was posting as a hypothetical and was not directed at any user in particular. It's definitely vulgar but he didn't use one of the banned words.

You are most definitely not allowed to post whatever you want. We're still looking at this space and will enforce the rules if they are broken in a manner that still promotes healthy discussion.

Meanwhile I'm pretty sure you just violated Discussion of Moderator Actions

mr-r34 wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Meanwhile I'm pretty sure you just violated Discussion of Moderator Actions

What's the reasoning behind this rule?

Peccadillo wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:I wonder whether extremists tend to suffer from scrupulosity, just a thought Probably there is a psychological disposition involved

Interesting area of research.

From Wiki: There are large regional differences in the percentage of OCD patients who have religious obsessions or compulsions, ranging from 0–7% in countries like the U.K. and Singapore, to 40–60% in traditional Muslim and orthodox Jewish populations.[7]

(7) a b van Megen HJGM, den Boer-Wolters D, Verhagen PJ. Obsessive compulsive disorder and religion: a reconnaissance. In: Verhagen P, Van Praag HM, López-Ibor JJ Jr, Cox J, Moussaoui D, editors. Religion and Psychiatry: Beyond Boundaries. Wiley; 2010. ISBN 978-0-470-69471-8. p. 271–82.

Dante wrote:

mr-r34 wrote:
What's the reasoning behind this rule?

you're not allowed to question the reasoning behind this rule

El Shaarawy wrote:

Dante wrote:

El Shaarawy wrote:


Jihad means 'struggle' in arabic, in the religious sense, jihad has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam. Jihad is not a violent concept,
its not a declaration of war against other religions. It is worth noting that the Quran specifically refers to Jews and Christians as "people of the book" who should be protected and respected. All three faiths worship the same God. Allah is just the Arabic word for God, and is used by Christian Arabs as well as Muslims.

I see. And how can anyone go from that to what they do?? Is the text THAT open to interpretation , or is it people just read what they like . Because , from what i read here and what Jihadists do, i see day and night. Probably a bigger difference.

I see struggle as you say , but that is struggle to exist and survive above anything else that isn't their religion. Working to inform people according to what the Jihadists do and say seems like working to show it's supposed power , which extremists represent through unspeakable acts , with the worst crimes. I could go on but anyway , you get the point , if that's Jihad you said there , then people must be reading something entirely different or i don't know what .

I always thought Jihad was religious war. Something like 'us' v infidels(people who believe something different) .

You have to keep in mind that these texts are over a 1000 years old, scholars today are still drawing deviations of interpretations from the text.

'Jihad' can also be translated to 'holy war' or 'holy struggle' but in a purely linguistic sense, the word means struggling or striving.

These animals that fight and cause wars, are twisting and tearing the words to fit their  motives, whatever that may be. I refuse to recognize them as Muslims, and so do others.

'Jihad' doesn't mean show supposed power, its not join Islam or die. If you feel like Islam is a religion that empowers you or restores some faith to you then you can become a muslim, if not, well then thats fine. No force is needed.

DuringTheWar wrote:

Peccadillo wrote:

DuringTheWar wrote:I wonder whether extremists tend to suffer from scrupulosity, just a thought Probably there is a psychological disposition involved

Interesting area of research.

From Wiki: There are large regional differences in the percentage of OCD patients who have religious obsessions or compulsions, ranging from 0–7% in countries like the U.K. and Singapore, to 40–60% in traditional Muslim and orthodox Jewish populations.[7]

(7) a b van Megen HJGM, den Boer-Wolters D, Verhagen PJ. Obsessive compulsive disorder and religion: a reconnaissance. In: Verhagen P, Van Praag HM, López-Ibor JJ Jr, Cox J, Moussaoui D, editors. Religion and Psychiatry: Beyond Boundaries. Wiley; 2010. ISBN 978-0-470-69471-8. p. 271–82.

It wouldn't surprise me if there's connection. When I read about Islam some of the behaviours taught, such as walking into a bathroom left foot first and leaving right foot first, seemed to chime with OCD compulsions.

mr-r34 wrote:LOL i can just foresee the bullshit excuse for that rule, what a joke.

Peccadillo wrote:Sorry but some things are a no go area. You can't prod a tiger with a stick and expect not to get bit.

There are laws in many countries, including Australia (Shed), where inciting hatred is punishable by law - this is for good reason. Shed you should check your own countries legal system, there is something called the Australian Racial Discrimination Act. But yes I agree it is not harsh enough.

It may be a joke, but when it is clearly there to push buttons and fuelling an already turbulent situation, then really you shouldn't do it.

Being an Australian you will remember the Cronulla Riots, where Alan Jones, a popular radio DJ, was encouraging locals to go down to Cronulla to kick the Lebanese (muslims) out of the beach. Reading out the following text message that was going around, and not opposing to it -  "Come to Cronulla this weekend to take revenge. This Sunday every Aussie in the Shire get down to North Cronulla to support the Leb and wog bashing day …"

Violence ensued where anyone of brown complexion in the vicinity of Cronulla beach were brutally bashed, two school kids were hospitalised as they arrived to Cronulla on the train after being beaten by about 50 men, thousands of white Australians roamed the streets yelling such digressions as "f off wogs" and nationalistic insanity hit an all time low.

Alan Jones got a slap on the wrist after he was eventually recognised for being "out of line". Although this is not a joke, it was still Alan Jones exercising what you believe to be his right to freedom of speech, therefore I don't see the difference. The fact something is intended to be humorous does not give it impunity.

So if you really believe that facilitating pure "freedom of speech" is wise and the best thing for society then you really are blind to reality.

No one agrees that people deserve to be murdered for making a joke, no matter how insensitive - clearly the punishment does not fit the crime. All people are saying is that Charlie Hedbo were pushing buttons and they would have known it. People enjoy it much like school children enjoy making inappropriate naughty jokes, irrespective of how it affects others, this can even be manifested into schoolyard bullying, which can contribute to suicide and even rarely, massacres.

This is fine amongst friends, but in a public domain you have a social responsibility.

As for your comparison to a woman who doesn't deserve to be raped for wearing a short skirt - undisputable. But more this is more like waving your privates in front of a convicted rapist and saying hello sailor.

Dante wrote:On the other hand , i've read stuff from Islam that clearly talk against infidels . Whilst in religion i've learned that almost everything is open to interpretation and whilst i am uncomfortable of pointing fingers without having read the Koran 100% , at least in an accepted translation , i find it a bit hard to believe they don't find any basis for the things they do . All the abrahamic religions have severely outdated doctrines inside them.

Having read the the Bible , both old and new , i must say there are clearly things in there that frankly have no place today. And i ask , do these parasites follow their holy book to the core , to the last word? Cause that would explain a lot. Having said that , i realise full well what you mean by , I refuse to recognize them as Muslims, and so do others . I really do . It hasn't even to do with just Muslims , there are many honestly moral and good persons in this world who believe and they don't count others as the same with them , they lead different lives and have different names , being Muslims/Christians only in name .

In any case , nobody should be blaming or even involving ordinary muslims for things these parasites have done.

Dante wrote:

mr-r34 wrote:LOL i can just foresee the bullshit excuse for that rule, what a joke.

but that's the society here. We accept it . We responsibly say what we say. WE agreed to the terms , so we can use the forums. It's only fair , not a lack of freedom of speech. It's not the same thing as away of the internet. I suspect people living in opressed countries have more freedom of speech in here than in their every day life , it's more complicated than that.

It goes to show really , similarly to what we discussed here. The French in their society have more open rules and it's their own rules that they agree on. Nobody can have and won't have a say on that , irregardless of their beliefs and what offends them.