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

311–320 of 489 posts

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

#311

Post by dragonwriter »

mobiplayer wrote: post #241
q4814 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's going to take a while before Islamists change their views on this issue. It's only been 1,500 years. Lets give them a little more time mmm-k?

Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?

If you look at the century centered on 1500: Just finishing 400 years of named-as-such Crusades, conquering much of the world in the name of Christ, violently repressing non-Christians in the areas it controlled, and getting started with religious wars between various factions of western Christianity which would be particularly prominent through the 17th Century.

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

#312

Post by Joeboy »

jules wrote: post #266
Joeboy wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm sorry but I completely disagree with you. This is the kind of response that these extremists want. I can't see that response anymore because HN doesn't believe in freedom of speech, but I do find the question of the killers' motives very interesting. The general reaction seems to be to straightforwardly accept the idea that it was a violent, dumb reprisal over cartoons they saw as blasphemous. I can't help but…

The comment was most likely deleted by the person who posted it, right?

From the replies I was assuming it was deleted for using the word "faggot" as a pejorative. I may be wrong.

To be clear, I don't mind the fact it was deleted. I do think Freedom of Speech is a poor justification for reprisals against Muslims of Islam partly because, as Stanley Fish put it, there's no such thing as free speech and it's a good thing too.

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

#313

Post by Nursie »

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…

>> And, based on those same estimates of probabilities, none of us should be here, given what we know so far.

Heard of the anthropic principle?

>> 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.

That's kinda the point though, sure we don't know everything, sure I can't disprove your god. But you have no more evidence for it than I do, you've taken the same knowledge base (actually usually less) and built a tissue of wishful thinking and fantasy upon it.

I don't agree that tolerance is respecting others beliefs. Respecting their right to have them is fine, but taking a philosophical stand that they're all just as valid is a stretch too far.

>> The approach you take is materially no different than that taken by those whom attacked Hebdo. And, you both believe your positions to be evidence-based.

Physicists believe their positions to be evidence based. People with paranoid delusions also believe it.

Are these the same too?

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

#314

Post by jacquesm »

codewritinfool wrote: post #259
mobiplayer wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny statement. Where was Christianity in year 1,500?

I don't know the answer to your specific question, but where is Christianity today COMPARED to 1500? Where is Islam today COMPARED to 1500? That is the real question in my mind, at least.

The answer to that question is simple: Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not.

So they're effectively to be compared with pre-enlightenment Christianity and then the differences are much smaller. The world does not move in lockstep. Sooner or later Islam will also experience its enlightenment (hopefully sooner) and then we will see the end of this nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

This guy had the right idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk

Sadly, missed opportunity and Turkey in spite of leading the way is currently in turmoil.

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

#315

Post by codingthebeach »

xcode_ wrote: post #288
chroma wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only non-violent religions I know of are Jainism and Theravāda Buddhism. The holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all contain passages encouraging their followers to torture, kill, and otherwise harm non-believers. Mainstream adherents followed these directives for millennia. It's taken centuries of conflict with enlightenment values to relegate such views to extremists. After September 11th, I read the…

I've studied Quran too and a bit of comparative religion and nowhere did I find any instance where it preaches violence. Look on the life of Prophet Muhammad for instance (you'll find plenty of non-Muslim accounts on His life that are non-biased) never you'll find any instance where he punished someone just because he ridiculed him. Forget about prophet, just when Europe was going through the dark ages and Muslims we…

This is just outright disingenuous. Both books have ample violence and the Quran specifically commands followers to chop off the body parts of the infidels. I can quote you the verses if you'd like. The Bible has its share of violence and gore too. What game are you playing at?

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

#316

Post by rikacomet »

kristofferR wrote: post #307
rikacomet wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yeah, of course. All the English translations say the same thing, so it's not a translation issue: 33:57: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th... 33:58: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th... 33:59: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th... 33:60: http://www.internetmosque.net/read/english_translation_of_th... 33:61: http://www.internetmosque.net/…

there you go quoting random things from the internet. This is really not worth my time anymore.

Should I say two things clearly?

1. I condemn the attack on charlie hebdo. Do you?

2. I condemn the over-the-top carricatures of Muhammad. Do you?

Whether your answer is Yes or No, that is your opinion, and this is mine.

For the record, any Quran you find over the internet is most likely to be not genuine.For example, there are only 30 chapters in Quran. so no.33 is just not possible.

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

#317

Post by JeremyNT »

easytiger wrote: post #218
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…

All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process. > Insurers wouldn't accept standard policies. No insurance policy I know will pay out for events of terrorism unless specifically negotiated (and i have done a few).

> All irrelevant. How is any of this relevant? The extrapolation of your logic is that we should legislate against offending Muslims. That is the only outcome of your thought process.

For what it's worth, I don't see that as the only outcome of the logic in the GP's post. I read the point as: due to self-censorship, we essentially reinforce the notion that terrorism works to silence speech.

Not to put any words in the poster's mouth, but it seems to me that the solution to this problem is to accept the risk and generate more speech, and to prove that murder is not an effective way to stop such speech.

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

#318

Post by PublicEnemy111 »

briandear wrote: post #196
flexie wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Editors all over the western world exercise more caution when it comes to satire about islam than about christianity and in my opinion it borders a form of racism of low expectations. Then again, who wants to be the next Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Jyllands-Posten, or Charlie Hebdo. It's not like they stand to gain much from running the risk.

Exactly this. The folks in places such as the White House are very quick to condemn some silly anti-Islam YouTube video, yet when the Palestinians make suicide bomber anti-Jew Seasame Street clones, the White House says nothing about the potential for such productions to be "irresponsible." It's like Muslims are little retarded kids and we aren't allowed to make fun of because the power to control themselves is not e…

I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance or extreme unemployment in Aleppo or Damascus. These cities had religious freedom and many Syrians were Catholic. I was fortunate enough to live with locals in both cities for two weeks. The poverty there is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the poverty here in the US or many other parts of the world.

There was some dissatisfaction with Al-Assad[1], but most Syrians supported him and continue to do so. This is not the first time extremist muslims have tried to overthrow him. I remember my hosts telling me he crushed a muslim rebellion in what I can only assume was the 80s or 90s

[1] I believe this had to do with his greedy brother or cousin who taxed businesses for personal profit

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

#319

Post by kbart »

TIJ wrote: post #60

Read news about the biggest gathering in paris ever as a tribute to the legendary cartoonist, terrorists are failing in their objectives.

Nope. Terrorist have won again. The aim of Islam terrorism is not to cause direct damage, but to install fear in all of us and reduce our freedom/democracy. Here's one of example that's relevant to people here on HN:

"In wake of Paris shootings, Prime Minister wants to ban encryptions that government can't read in extreme situations"

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...

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

#320

Post by markc »

JonnieCache wrote: post #26
neals wrote: post #7

I used to think society would, at some point, grow up and leave religion behind. But lately, it just feels like a far 'lower' form of religion is just taking over. I think that western christianity has made some big strides. For example, by leaving all the violence behind. Now the violent ones are winning. This makes me sad for the future of Europe.

The religious instinct hasn't gone from the secular western world, it's just been re-expressed in different more modern ways, variously consumerism, string theory, celebrity, and so on. I'm pretty sure personally that it's built into our biology. In the words of Charlie Brooker: "Imagine! Nothing to kill or die for! And no religion too! It's amazing, literally no one's ever had that thought before. Okay, so there's a…

Nothing wrong with "spiritual feelings". Atheists have them too. Clearly a mostly secular society is possible even with our biology/instincts, just look at Sweden or Denmark. No need to erase love, sorrow, pity, jokes or art to largely erase religious conflict. It's culture, and we can evolve culturally beyond our current primitivism. I'm with neals; I used to think we'd leave religion behind. Maybe some day "believers" will be a small minority. I hope so. I'm sad to say most of us will not see that day.
Post reply on HN