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

Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 489 posts

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#291

Post by bkmartin »

bkmartin wrote: post #195
Simp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Western christianity didn't leave all violence behind, see for example anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_S...

Violent acts against those who disagree with you is not a Christian principal and goes directly against the teaching of our faith. Period. Anyone who supports or performs acts of violence as you are referencing are sinning and blaspheming when using a reference to God for their actions. No excuses, those are evil acts.

Hmmm, that's interesting. I got downvoted for saying that violent acts on abortion clinics are evil and go against a religious principal? Would the downvoter care to actually engage in a conversation about why they thought I an deemed worthy of a downvote? Is it because I identified myself with a religious belief? Please, please do engage with me.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#292

Post by resonantcore »

It's difficult to be surprised by this turn of events.

It's in poor taste, in one sense, but overall it's the only appropriate response that a satirist magazine could take in the wake of this tragedy.

Followers of Islam the whole world over will continue to ignore these publications nonviolently, though a few extremists might be further radicalized by this decision.

Meanwhile, David Cameron is trying to outlaw cryptography after these attacks. Surely that deserves more of our attention right now?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#293

Post by totony »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #87
lovelearning wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for the upvote. If the downvotes were due to religious reasons, then I have to admit it is rather sad to see them on HN. On the other hand, if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them. From the link and history of the cartoons, I've reached the rather odd conclusion that anyone named "Mahomet" or "Muhammad" in a cartoon is automatically assumed to be the prophet Muhammad.

> if they were due to perceived ignorance or stupidity, then I accept them You were just asking an earnest question. What's actually stupid is the downvote feature itself. Upvotes can help promote good content and flags can call attention to inappropriate or problematic content. Likewise, comments can be used to express disagreement. So, what's the purpose of downvotes? Are we in preschool?

Agreed with you. If a comment is utterly useless, it can always be flagged. Downvoting shouldn't be implemented the way it is, as it does not explain why the comment is downvoted and as it hides the comment by graying it, hiding unpopular opinions most often.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#294

Post by guard-of-terra »

mathetic wrote: post #205
rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

As a an atheist, who spent nearly all of his life in a country with 99% Muslim population, I do not understand how people who live in such society and got an education defend the religion. >> First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. First of all, this is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Islam, after Christianity, has the bloodiest history we know. The only reason it…

To sum you up, "this is unfortunate but can we still be friends?"

You are not guaranteed that. Nobody has to be friendly to you and reasserting your "feelings" will make people avoid you further.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#295

Post by ca98am79 »

Offering forgiveness in the face of such brutality is very powerful and meaningful to me. It is moving and inspiring. When something so brutal like this happens, I can get depressed and not understand. It is easy to feel a lot of anger about it.

But then in the face of this brutality, when their co-workers and friends were murdered in cold blood, to offer forgiveness - it really does a lot to restore my faith in humanity.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#296

Post by rikacomet »

kristofferR wrote: post #150
rikacomet wrote: post #95

First of all.. certainly as a Muslim, I condemn the attack on Charlie Hebdo. This is not Islam. But, if I were to take the liberty to express my own opinion, I would say honestly, I think both parties were at wrong here. First that their have been many instances in the life of our prophet, when he faced not just harsh but inhuman treatment, specially in his hometown of Mecca. Yet he never lifted a finger or even wish…

Honestly, and it kinda hurts me to say it, but the belief that blasphemers should be punished is unfortunately a very reasonable interpretation of the Quran. It doesn't take any interpretation at all, it says directly that they should be slain in 33:57-61 for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy Don't get me wrong, the Bible commands the death penalty for a lot of things too, like working on a S…

Can I point, that one of the central tenants of Islam is that the only source of Quran is Quran itself. Wikipedia is not a accurate source. But you knew that right?

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#297

Post by tomp »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #271
tomp wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They might as well exist, but based on my prior estimates of probabilities of different events, and Bayesian reasoning, I conclude that it's much more likely that you're insane than that you've actually seen a unicorn (I don't discard the existence of unicorns entirely, I just consider it very improbable).

You don't have to explain your reasoning. My point is predicated on my understanding your reasoning perfectly. And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far. It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little. In truth, neither of…

> It just strikes me as profoundly short-sighted (and unwitting self-parody) for people to claim such assuredness of the falseness of others' beliefs when we all know so very little.

It's the other way around; I ridicule others based on their self-assuredness that their belief is correct (without proof). Discussion of things that probably don't exist (e.g. time travel) or that we don't know whether they exist or not (wormholes) can be perfectly rational and reasonable, as long as all parties fully acknowledge that their knowledge is limited, and abstain from referring to strong, but ultimately unprovable, belief. Discussions about god/religion usually are not like that; in particular, most religions are based on an implicit denial of all other religions/prophets/versions of the truth.

> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo.

My approach might be philosophically no different, but it is very materially different (I didn't even attack anybody physical (in the material world), let alone kill anyone).

> And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.

No, I just ridicule other's belief when it's not evidence based (which is, essentially, the basis of science).

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#298

Post by olavk »

eloff wrote: post #278
xcode_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think no religion preaches violence, including Islam. Its the followers that have their own interpretations.. Do we relate the acts of Hitler to Christianity?

You've obviously never read the Qur'an. There are pages and pages of material condoning and inciting people to violence. Sam Harris printed pages of quotes from a translation of the Qur'an in The End of Faith, it was an eye-opening read for me. I often hear liberals repeating that it's not really a violent text, without knowing anything about it, they just want to believe it, maybe because it fits with the liberal ph…

The old testament is incredible violent, with literal genocides ordered by God. I struggle to see how anybody who have read both could consider it less violent than the Quran.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#299

Post by philh »

totony wrote: post #275
philh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find such warnings an insult to my intelligence and a trivialization of people's personal responsibility How so? If an article says "trigger warning: (rape/Mohammed/spiders/flashing lights)", then people who don't want to be exposed to those things (e.g. due to PTSD, religion, phobias, epilepsy - or simply because it upsets them and they don't particularly want to be upset right now) can choose not to read it. Ho…

Your proposition makes no sense, simple warning someone would offend them that way. I relate to the OP that trigger warnings are an insult to my intelligence. If such a thing offends me, I should be able to judge it by myself or stop reading. The title is explicit enough to assume the "triggering" content is present.

Trite response: if trigger warnings offend you, you can choose to stop reading when you encounter them. Or just skip them, they take up one line in any given article. Problem solved!

Longer response:

I accept that you, and others like you, don't like trigger warnings. What concrete action would you like me to take in response to this?

If the answer is "stop posting this thing that I don't like", well... sorry, but I'm not going to do that. I think there's a lot of good that comes from trigger warnings, and I don't think the harm they do to you outweighs that.

Meanwhile, other people are saying "I don't like when you post things like this. Please warn me when you're going to post them." That costs a lot less to comply with.

Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad

#300

Post by jacquesm »

austenallred wrote: post #274
chroma wrote: post #32

The Charlie Hebdo attacks show that these days, real satire of Islam can't be done without significant risk of violent reprisal. If you doubt that statement, remember The Book of Mormon. (The play, not the actual book.) Could you imagine Trey Parker and Matt Stone making an equivalent Broadway play about Islam? Could you imagine them calling it The Qur'an to Google-bomb the original? Even if they disregarded their ow…

The official response by the LDS church to the Book of Mormon was this: "The production may attempt to entertain audiences for an evening, but the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture will change people's lives forever by bringing them closer to Christ." [1] Not exactly what you would call "backlash." Then the church took out an ad in the playbill. [2] [1] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-reg…

> And I'm sure people openly mock the temple ceremony somewhere -- that would cause any Mormons to kill two dozen people.

Didn't you mean 'wouldn't' ?

Post reply on HN