I'm offended by the fact that there is a warning at the top of this page...
Shouldn't it be there all the time then?
How about, we don't believe in anything anymore, or we don't have any integrity?
Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
381–390 of 489 posts
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction, less than a flag. Not every comment here is gold to be honest. They don't need to be eliminated but they should be grey as a signal to new readers. At least that is how I view the ones I receive. As has been pointed out by many sometimes it is hard to figure out why you have been downvoted. I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote. Also I ha…
>I think the purpose of downvotes is a mild correction
Unfortunately, I just don't think people are generally that nuanced with it. But that may not be their fault, and instead may be in part due to what I mentioned previously: flags are for inappropriate content, comments should be for disagreement, so where does that leave downvoting? What is a "mild correction"?
>I'd like to test the idea of mandatory comment before downvote
I have thought this too. I really just think downvotes are childish and counterproductive, but if there must be downvoting, then the downvoter should at least be required to provide a cogent rationale that is subject to the same public scrutiny and potential for discussion.
It just seems a perverted incentive to "punish" those who take their time to contribute to the discussion, while allowing the "punisher" to remain anonymous and lazy.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#383Earlier quoted context omitted.
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_Enligh…
Erm... Islam was what kept most of the world out of the Dark Ages. They didn't need to experience enlightenment when they were busy experiencing Algebra and the number zero. The Middle-east is such a hellhole because the Ottoman Empire got royally F'''ed up in World War 1. And its iddy-bitty pieces were redrawn by the Allies. Whereas Germany remained strong and rebelled against the Allied rule by basically starting W…
That certainly didn't help. But Islam still has to see its Erasmus and until then this madness will likely persist.
Religion is a personal thing.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To offend him is to offend me. You can't really offend that which does not currently exist. I can't offend Genghis Khan any more than I can offend the prophet or Jesus. > The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. No, that's not the same way.
Why was this down voted ?
Because being outspoken in a thread that touches on religion will get you downvoted. Don't sweat it.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dear Jacques, your opinion is not the only one that matters, I hope you remember that. No opinion got diluted, nor yours or mine or whatever you meant by that. I will say this clearly to you, Muslim people have faith in Prophet Muhammad and his teachings. What are they? You neither have complete knowledge nor intention to get it. It in-fact, includes the same liberties and rights you seem to be are defending at the m…
The Muslims in my cirle make no attempt to apologize for what happened here and are not adding weaselwords to their condemnations. They realize that actions like these make all muslims look bad, even those that would have nothing to do with any of this. You are unable for some reason to see that you are indirectly blaming the victim here and you are qualifying your condemnation.
And you are unable to see that you are simply starting to touch the line of madly imposing your opinion upon others. and Also doing both side of a conversation.
It is very easy to sit at home and be a arm-chair philosopher, and hope that the people in your circle are the all-there-is of the world.
In your opinion it is not possible for Muslims to have sensitivity about certain topics, that they would not like to be toyed around with. Cause that is against the concept of liberty perhaps?
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To offend him is to offend me. You can't really offend that which does not currently exist. I can't offend Genghis Khan any more than I can offend the prophet or Jesus. > The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. No, that's not the same way.
>> The same way, someone would offend you by offending your family. >No, that's not the same way. Maybe for those offended it might be? It can explain a lot of the anger.
Religious people tend to identify strongly with their religion, that is why this can happen.
But they fail to recognize that their religion, its rules and customs apply to them, the subscribers to that religion and not to the rest of the world.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#387One thing I fail to understand is the general reaction - or, rather, the absence of such - of 'Islamic authorities' on this and other acts of violence in the name of their religion. There are many complaints about those who point fingers at all Muslims when these things happen, something which would be easily defused by a fatwa (a legal opinion) from some high-placed muftis declaring such acts as 'haram' - sinful. I do not know enough about Islam to know whether there is something resembling 'excommunication' in the Roman Catholic church, but if there is it would make sense to apply it to those who commit such acts of violence. If the perpetrators can no longer claim to be defending their religion they might start to realise that their acts of violence are criminal acts, pure and simple, without any religious excuse.
Such a fatwa - or series of fatwas, as there are many currents in Islam - would take away the cause for the general blame which is aimed at Muslims when atrocities are performed in name of their religion.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Muslims in my cirle make no attempt to apologize for what happened here and are not adding weaselwords to their condemnations. They realize that actions like these make all muslims look bad, even those that would have nothing to do with any of this. You are unable for some reason to see that you are indirectly blaming the victim here and you are qualifying your condemnation.
And you are unable to see that you are simply starting to touch the line of madly imposing your opinion upon others. and Also doing both side of a conversation. It is very easy to sit at home and be a arm-chair philosopher, and hope that the people in your circle are the all-there-is of the world. In your opinion it is not possible for Muslims to have sensitivity about certain topics, that they would not like to be t…
> In your opinion it is not possible for Muslims to have sensitivity about certain topics, that they would not like to be toyed around with.
You can have all the sensitivity you want but that stops at the point where you export your sensitivities to others in the form of either bodily harm or threats to do so.
> Cause that is against the concept of liberty perhaps?
Exactly so.
The liberty to express ones opinion even if that is uncomfortable for the recipient is a very strong right and religion is not exempt from this in France.
In some countries there are laws on the books that will get you punished severely if you should insult some religious entity but France is not one of those and those that chose to live in France should abide by its laws first, and not whatever code their religion imposes on them.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#389Earlier quoted context omitted.
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-…
"I was in Syria before the war(~2006) and there was no patriarch-dominance"
I was in Syria in 2010, also before the war. I travelled around for a fortnight.
I completely disagree. It was an almost entirely patriarchal society. I can't even begin to comprehend how you came to any other conclusion. The dominance of men in positions of authority and in the social life of all the cities I visited, including Damascus and Aleppo, was overwhelming and blindingly obvious.
For example, how many women did you see in cafes without male escorts? How many officials did you interact with who were female? How many times did you see women shopping alone in Souks? I think my answer to that is "pretty much zero".
Damascus was definitely much more liberal than other places. I don't recall the same being true of Aleppo.
I agree, however, that the poverty wasn't too bad, compared to other countries.
Popular support for Al-Assad was complicated. It's hard to assess people's true feelings about a situation when they live partly in fear of the consequences of their criticism.
Re: Charlie Hebdo: first cover since terror attack depicts prophet Muhammad
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously jacquesm? I'm truly shocked at this coming from you. I have a lot of respect you & love reading your stuff, but really? "Christianity experienced enlightenment and Islam did not"? Surely you're not so ignorant as to dismiss the thousand years where the Islamic world was the abode of knowledge, science and civilization while Europe was in the dark ages. Yes, shit sucks for them now. But to say they never exp…
'Killah911' ? Right... As for what the enlightenment was all about, maybe you should read up on that first before starting a rant like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment So no, Islam did not experience enlightenment. The closest they came to that was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk and his attempt to reduce the influence of religion on politics but it mostly failed outside…
Nice, if you look at my profile, you'd see there's a reason I still stick on my hacker handle form the 90's. Sorry for the ranty nature of my comment. I saw your comment and was and was about to breeze past until I saw your handle. I can appreciate your view on Kemal Ataturk. But I humbly differ in my views of him.
What I was saying weren't just some anecdotes. May I humbly suggest you read up on the subject a little more before making such pronouncements. I don't care if some random person says something. But I think hope in the future rests in someone like you being informed and balanced in your views.
The internet is an amazing thing. It can help melt away prejudices and connect people who think from around the world. People who have the power to shape the future. We must be more sensible and informed. (It may sound elitist, but lets face it, this place in some way is a cafe that anyone from the US or Afghanistan can join in and discuss).
I'd argue that Ataturk was the wrong kind of leader. What the Muslim world needs is a Gandhi. Someone who doesn't force them to be this way or that way. All freedom need not look the same. I may be naive in thinking this, but maybe the world just needs better internet. There are people who destroy and people who build. If we could get the builders in the same community globally and get them communicating, there may be hope for a better yet.
(Advance apologies for the second rant)