Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Je Suis Charlie

charliehebdo.fr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 292 posts

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#251

Post by ZigmundFreud »

waps wrote: post #217
Jayd2014 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Muslim here. > the moderate muslims are often rather quiet. Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that: 1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance. 2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max v…

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

And yet Christians have it so right...

"Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, Abraham!' And he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you.'"(Gen. 22:1-2).

Remember that religious texts are mostly proverbs. These events most probably didn't actually happen, they are trying to communicate moral attitudes via stories... a little like Winnie the Pooh and Friends.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#252

Post by cbd1984 »

schoen wrote: post #248
cbd1984 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was referring to, for example, if a terrorist group says "we are going to do ... if you publish that thing" (like what already happened), wouldn't that qualify as 'immediate violence' in order to stop the publication? If they made a specific and credible threat to cause death, bodily harm, or serious property damage if someone published something, yes, I think that would qualify as an illegal terroristic threat u…

I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat. You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).

> I think the parent commenter's question was whether it would be illegal to publish something that was the subject of a credible terrorist threat, not to make a credible terrorist threat.

Oh. Sorry. I guess I didn't even consider that, because it would be obvious to me: Yes, of course you can publish something that was the subject of a threat. That isn't even mildly controversial here; in fact, not publishing something because you were threatened would be seen as rank cowardice. Look at what happened to Sony for what was ultimately a brief delay in releasing The Interview.

> You addressed whether people are allowed to make threats (no) rather than whether the government can use the threats as a reason to prevent the thing that is the target of the threats (generally also no).

Right. Exactly.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#253

Post by mercurial »

pvaldes wrote: post #238
RivieraKid wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that religion didn't play a role in the motivation behind Breivik's attack.

Upvoted because you have the right to think this, even if is wrong. That is how freedom of speech works...

Downvoting is also an expression of freedom speech. It's quite different from censorship.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#254

Post by mercurial »

mieses wrote: post #193
mieses wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are supposed to be free to practice their religion, which means shooting people for a drawing. Maybe religious freedom should not extend to psychopathic ideologies just as freedom to bear arms does not extend to personal nuclear weapons.

Wasn't the act of shooting a religious practice? You may choose to rationalize a separation of religion from its inevitable outcomes. They don't. Edit: You also twisted my statement. I asked whether the freedom should extend to the ideology. You twisted it around and stated that the freedom does not extend to shooting people. You're hiding from the issue.

I'm not so much hiding from the issue as (apparently) failing to understand what point you are trying to make.

Regarding "shooting as a religious practice", well, not in the sense I understand "religious practice", that is, a regular ritual. If you're talking about "religious reasons", sure. Much in the same way that plenty of people have died for political reasons due to the actions of fringe movements, which in a democracy is not ground enough to ban the more mainstream version of these groups (eg, the actions of the banned left-wing Action Directe in France did not lead to the dissolution of the Communist Party).

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#255

Post by azth »

waps wrote: post #212
sehr wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(No snark intended), just google it. For example the Wikipedia page for free speech in the US is pretty detailed, and covers a lot of the legislation regarding it. Lots of people have asked and answered this type of question over the years, and most of it's been documented!

I think maybe he meant from the perspective of muslims. That answer is here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan This is what makes this so difficult : muslims killing because of negative opinions on islam is something that is sanctioned by the religion, and that was practiced for over 15 centuries now. A very uncomfortable question is what muslim children in the west are taught on this question. I'm…

I don't know why you keep pasting that Wikipedia link. It even says that this story is false and fabricated.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#256

Post by pouetpouet »

_almosnow wrote: post #209

I honestly want to know how is it allowed for someone to humiliate and make fun of something that is sacred to other people/culture. 'Free speech' I know, but when does someone's right to express themselves ends? Doesn't (or shouldn't) it has its limits? There are many other instances where you can't get away with something just because it is free speech. How come guys like Julian Assange are not protected under 'fre…

First I find it really offensive that you bring that point up. Because I think you are blaming the victims. They had every right to publish what they did.

Because anything can be sacred to anybody, so we won't be able to discuss anything. When something is sacred to somebody it applies only to them not to non follower of these made up laws. Caving to that would be accepting de facto sharia law. You can't hide behind sacred. You can't censor something just because you are offended. This is basic free speech.

Religions are not exempt from criticism. Religious nutjobs deserve every bit of mockery and disrespect. These terrorists are the caricature.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#257

Post by ozh »

grownseed wrote: post #71
tokenadult wrote: post #40

Posted on my Facebook wall immediately. Thanks for sharing the link. Earlier today, I was searching for news stories about the shooting incident in Paris that would actually show the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo to establish context for how cowardly and despicable the shooting was. Most English-language press outlets are not showing the cartoons. A comment on one news site pointed out that Spanish-language med…

Thanks for sharing this. For context, the picture says: - top-left: "Mahomet overwhelmed by fundamentalists" - in the speech bubble: "It's hard to be loved by dumbasses" (the meaning of "con" is hard to convey in certain cases, it has this idea of "nefariously idiotic" - translating it to "cunt" wouldn't do it justice I believe) In any case, this is all very alarming. I hope nobody submits to the threats, as is the p…

(For the record, I think "con" and "cunt" are very identical, since they both mean "nasty idiot" and "female genitalia")

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#258

Post by questerzen »

Attacks in two of my home cities (Paris and Sydney) in recent weeks affecting people I am closely connected to. It is truly heartbreaking. It makes me very proud that in both cities, people refuse to accept these actions as anything but the actions of inexcusable murderers; and in both cases people have made use of the internet to share a positive message of hope and solidarity (Je Suis Charlie / IllRideWithYou). When I grew up in London during the IRA bombings, no such channel existed and the message was a very negative one issued by the government and echoed by the broadcast media. What a difference it makes that the general population now have a channel to direct the way these actions are viewed, communicated and reflected back to the perpetrators. Yes, now we ARE all Charlie.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#259

Post by _cipher_ »

Nice. While Philae landed in a comet after a ~10 year trip, some people still killing each other because they believe/insulted an imaginary god. sigh

Don't get me wrong. Almost every big religion did the same (crusaders anyone?). But for me, this kind of behavior (regardless the religion), leads me to believe that these people are Uruk-Hai in human form.

2015 and instead of chosing to actually educate people, that sh*t keeps happenning.

Re: Je Suis Charlie

#260

Post by [deleted] »

waps wrote: post #217
Jayd2014 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Muslim here. > the moderate muslims are often rather quiet. Yes we are. But there are a few reasons for that: 1- First, Muslims can't be put in one group, there is 1.6 billion muslims worldwide with hundreds of different views and levels of tolerance. 2- Most of them don't have time or are too busy with their daily life. Think about the % of people who go vote every four years in a democracy. 30% maybe 50% at max v…

The problem is that the terrorists are right about islam. So what do you think about your prophet doing the same ? Are you also ashamed of that ? He had the mother of 5 children murdered for opposing him. As you (should) know, this is far from the only instance of such action by "the prophet". I am sorry but unless you wholeheartedly condemn this kind of killing, whoever did it, your gesture means little. If you don'…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN