 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Essentially, if most of us are peaceful and law abiding - and potentially, legally bearing arms - then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.Northwind - Member
Complicated maths basically but certainly nobody can make a factually rooted argument that we'd be safer or less safe from this sort of attack if we could all have guns, it's essentially unknowable and this sort of attack is thankfully too rare to draw conclusions.
I agree that the balancing factor is the very real concerns of a general public who are, in large numbers, demonstrably poor in mastering road vehicles which travel at just tens of miles per hour, holding the means to fire projectiles at hundreds of miles per hour and making split-second decisions at that is, frankly, as laughable as it is chilling.
What concerns me most is the bright background in the Paris incident would highlight any spray of blood from an exit wound, yet apparently, there is none.
Jesus this thread has gone very downhill since the last time I had a look. I reckon what most concerns most people is that lots of innocent people are dead and how horrific it must be for their families.
Now I don't know what goes through the head of a religious nutter but I don't think delivering a powerpoint presentation of everything that has led to them flipping out is really on the agenda.
Very funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be. Or do you think that you know better. If he claimed he was subjected to abuse as a child would you dismiss that and infer that it must be some religious indoctrination at work? I suspect not so why do you do the reverse?
Sam Harris has a view on guns and although on the face of it I hate them and think the less we have the better it is certainly an interesting read.
[url= http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun ]Sam Harris, the riddle of the gun[/url]
as does everyone else in the vicinity. I guess gun ownership must be the reason crime rates are so low in america.then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.
South Africans own a lot of guns. They must be really safe from murder.
[img] 
[/img]
digga - Member
Essentially, if most of us are peaceful and law abiding - and potentially, legally bearing arms - then any outlaw of any description runs the risk of being shot in the course of whatever crime they are committing.
[url= http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check ]Pro-gun myths fact-checked[/url]
Myth #4: More good guys with guns can stop rampaging bad guys.
Fact-check: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
• Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5
surfer - MemberVery funny. But as per the question why would you not believe the motivating factor was what they claim it to be.
Er, I already answered that. But just to repeat, it's basically context. We're talking about the things they shouted while attacking the building. It's not a complete annotated list of grievances, it's a war cry. So I'm not suggesting that the cartoon wasn't a motivating factor- I'm saying that what they shouted doesn't imply that it's the only one. And common sense pretty much dictates that it's not
South Africans own a lot of guns. They must be really safe from murder.
Interestingly, so do Americans and the USA is, let's see...
in the bottom three...
To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.
I have plenty of Muslim friends, my closest friend is Muslim. But I disagree with mixing cultures on such a huge scale as has happened in parts of the UK since New Labour. I think multi-culturalism on the scale practiced in the last 15 years to be a huge mistake, which could lead to a civil war in the next twenty years. I have more in common with Muslims than the majority of my non-Muslim peers and I expect the STW Massive - mainly the fact that we both believe in God.
Human beings are searching for conflict (as any quick browse of the STW forum illustrates) so it is good statesmanship to reduce the potential for conflict - and conflict based on tribal/religious identity is usually the most explosive.
Why, for example, did the West continue its policy of multi-culturalism after 9/11? It makes no sense.
gonzy,
For the sake of clarity please don't use the word "Islamophobia", it conflates people and ideas, and it doesn't help.
Not to be a maajid nawaz fanboy (i am 🙂
There is no such thing as "Islamophobia".
No idea should be immune from scrutiny.
There is such a thing as anti-Muslim hate.
No people should be beneath dignity
Maajid Nawaz
I agree with you about the fact that some people here go beyond the idea and start criticising and blaming all muslims, and that is wrong.
But we are allowed to criticise Islam.
The freedom to do that is sadly what brought us here.
The necessity of doing that will probably have us discussing this again in the future.
And
digga - Member
He makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them.
Myth #10: We don't need more gun laws—we just need to enforce the ones we have.
Fact-check: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
• Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
• An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
• 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
• The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives did not have a permanent director for 7 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.
Not the EDF but Tommy Robinson eat the pudding. Wouldn't trust either of them.
To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.
a bit of a contradiction that statement dont you think? especially when in many cases culture and religion are so deeply intertwined...
if you so anti-multiculturalist how would you respond if say i moved to your neighbourhood? i see myself as british born and bred but i am of asian heritage and am a muslim...if you dont object to my integration into your society on religious grounds then it must be on the grounds of my heritage...which would make you a bit of a xenophobe....racist at worst.
Why, for example, did the West continue its policy of multi-culturalism after 9/11? It makes no sense.
what was it supposed to do? declare war on all the non-westerners and non-christians? maybe they should have all been rounded up and stuck in prison camps for their own safety or kicked out of western civilisation
As to Trump's view - I'm sure our society would benefit from having cases like [url= http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-boy-2-accidentally-kills-woman-in-idaho-wal-mart/ ]this[/url]
poor kid
especially when in many cases culture and religion are so deeply intertwined...
They need to be un-intertwined.
a bit of a contradiction that statement dont you think? especially when in many cases culture and religion are so deeply intertwined...
This is the nub of the issue.
Britain has a long history of removing ecumenical/religious authority from the state - starting with Martin Luther, via Henry VIII, and continuing through Cromwell (to be fair he also hanged the left wing communist diggers) and onwards.
How to fit religion in with western culture.
Gonzy I am very happy for you or indeed anyone else of any other faith or background, to integrate into British Society and to do so whilst respecting your beliefs and traditions. The issue is where people reject the very foundations of modern Western civilisation and take it upon themselves to act to to incite others to do so.
but i'm glad the mods have kept it open as it encourages debate and it allows the likes of jambalaya et al to spout their usual bollocks...
Interesting thing is gonzy I am "spouting" government policy, of the UK, of the US and of most of Europe too. The words quoted on Al Monitor ring very true.
We now have a second instance of a terrorist returning from the Middle East choosing to murder Jews, first at the museum in Belgium and now at the super market in Paris. Mix this in with the murder of journalists for drawing cartoons.
JY you might as well post a picture of Gordon Brown as he'd have done just the same as Blair with respect to the Middle East.
Correct.badnewz - Member
To be against multi-culturalism does not make one Islamophobic.
Here is a good critique:
Agreed, I am not pro-gun. As I already said, expecting joe public to successfully multitask as judge, jury and executioner is beyond stupid.Lifer - Member
And...
Of a table of 9 countries.Interestingly, so do Americans and the USA is, let's see...in the bottom three...
Gonzy as you are back and you've said you've read through the thread you'll see I posted that this summer you saw the admission first from the Hamas leader in Turkey and then the head of the whole organization in Qatar that Hamas operatives (released from jail under a prisoner exchange by Israel) kidnapped and murdered the three teenagers. Add that to 6 months of rocket attacks on Israel from Jan to June 2014 and you have the deliberate provcation of a response from Israel
Abu Hamza receives his sentencing later today in New York
But we are allowed to criticise Islam.
The freedom to do that is sadly what brought us here.
The necessity of doing that will probably have us discussing this again in the future.
i agree with you but its one thing to criticise and another to ridicule/insult a religion and its followers
i feel we're in a vicious circle here...the actions that have led to this discussion are unacceptable and so are some of the attitudes that have come to the forefront from the resulting debate on here
In a free society, nobody has some divine right not to be offended.
I can't think of anything, other than politics, that is more deserving of ridiculing than religion. You can't have one group of people decreeing that that is now off limits. Which is what they're trying to do
Gonzy you are creating a worrying false equivalence with your statement - also ridicule is absolutely acceptable in our civilisation.
Not sure how you can conflate the actions of these nutjobs with the views on multiculturalism mentioned here either. Unbelievable equivocation.
are you saying pisstaking of religion is/should not be allowed?i agree with you but its one thing to criticise and another to ridicule/insult a religion and its followers
While obviously people being personally bullied harrassed on the web (and elsewhere) is a growing problem, the criticism and satirising of a concept/idea is freedom of speech and should not have limitation placed on it.
i've not spotted that post of yours jambalaya....which page is it on?
also ridicule is absolutely acceptable in our civilisation.
Absolutely. It's part of the British culture.
What an idiot he never makes sense
IGMC
you can be as critical as you want of any religion and its followers...criticism leads to re-evaluating the ideology behind the religion and will hopefully create better understanding
but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed...when its tongue-in-cheek it can be tolerated though but when its done with a hint of malice then it doesnt sit well for me.
but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed
Still doesn't justify murder. Drawing your own cartoon back would probably be appropriate.
Fair enough, there is a difference between a joke and an insult but Charlie Hebdo never crossed this line.
who draws the line?but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed
Still doesn't justify murder. Drawing your own cartoon back would probably be appropriate.
i never said it did
In a free society, nobody has some divine right not to be offended.
Strange how its always worded like that rather than an explanation of why it s ok to be rude and insulting to folk
FWIW no society is free than anything goes.
What about Johnathon Ross and Brand did they have the right to do that to Sachs and he had no right to not expect to be offended by them?
Bit less noble there and really it all depends.
I dont think religion is off limits but personally i am able to criticise all religions without the need for pictures.
Its about balance and .......nuance
If you're so insecure that you can't tolerate your beliefs being insulted then its you who has the problem, not the society which allows those insults through its belief in the right to free speech
I find it absolutely incomprehensible that anyone can try and defend any position other than that!
"He makes the trite but nonetheless factual comment that when guns are illegal (for non-military/police), only outlaws carry them."
Well 3 people at the scene did have guns and the training to defend themselves from the terrorists and I am sorry to say it did not do them or any one else any good .
but when pisstaking turns to downright insulting then i feel that a boundary has been crossed.
& at that point it is ok to shoot people?
People insult religion becasue they perceive it to be a malevolent force in society. Or at least certain aspects of it are. This being one of them. Feel free to believe what you like, people who don't believe in your particular deity are free to criticize, including with malice.
Wouldn't it be better to allow your omnipotent deity to take whatever steps it deems necessary?
I am not sure why folk confuse freedom of speech and the freedom to insult
Fair enough, there is a difference between a joke and an insult but Charlie Hebdo never crossed this line.
but they knew it was a touchy subject...this became apparent when the death threats were issued against the Danish magazine for doing the same...they must have sensed that this was the case hence why they had police protection...nevertheless the actions of Charlie Hebdo did not warrant what those 2 evil men did when they murdered those 12 people
I am not sure why folk confuse freedom of speech and the freedom to insult
Its fairly simple. Insults are part of that 'freedom of speech'.
You can call me a **** for believing that. I'm a grown up. I can take it
David Cameron should sue, then...
but they knew it was a touchy subject...this became apparent when the death threats were issued against the Danish magazine for doing the same
Yeah... theres a word for that. Its called intimidation. And thats where you cross the line as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Ironic isn't it?
gonzy,
i agree with you but its one thing to criticise and another to ridicule/insult a religion and its followersi feel we're in a vicious circle here...the actions that have led to this discussion are unacceptable and so are some of the attitudes that have come to the forefront from the resulting debate on here
I agree that some people have gone too far. Going beyond criticism of an idea into making offensive assumptions about groups of people is where some people go wrong.
But you have to accept that fair criticism can be taken by some people as ridicule or insult.
In my view ridiculous beliefs need to be able to be ridiculed.
Virgin births, flying horses, the whole shebang is ridiculous. I feel quite alright saying that any religious person (of any creed) who looks critically at their own beliefs should chuck the whole lot.
But you have to be able to separate the idea from the people.
I have to run so I can't source this quote I read recently:
"People are sacred not ideas"
That covers how I feel about it.
but they knew it was a touchy subject
That's the point though isn't it Gozny?
It shouldn't be. Charlie Hebdo, like most people know that this "no images of the prophet" is just daft, which is what the entire "je suis charlie" thing is about.
If you are not a muslim yes it is daft f you are a muslim it is Haram
Either way one group imposes on another
Personally I am able to criticise Islam without drawing a picture of the prophet
One of those someone is going to be pissed off whatever happens
My line in the sand would be not criticising Islam where as not drawing the prophet is to just show them some basic respect
What if the insults become bullying ?
Is it still ok and freedom of speech?
Its irrelevant as there are limits to our free speech we are better off discussing where we draw the line rather than if the line is drawn.
I dont think anyone has the right to just wander around insulting folk
I dont think what ross and brand did was about free speech it was cruel and bullying
YMMV
Hostage takers holding at least six people at a Paris kosher supermarket are demanding freedom for the cornered brothers suspected of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
That's just not nice.
Didn't the brothers say they wanted to be martyrs?
Israel have offered support. France could do with some serious Mossad action right now.
Maybe future opportunities for Mossad franchises on mainland Europe...
Its irrelevant as there are limits to our free speech we are better off discussing where we draw the line rather than if the line is drawn.
I'd rather not have the line drawn by violent religious fanatics and fascists thanks. We have a justice system, and laws, which clearly defines when the line has been crossed
I dont think anyone has the right to just wander around insulting folk
Yes they do. You do. I do. We all do. It may not be nice. You don't have to like it. But it is a right. One we all share. Thats the price you pay for a truly free society I'm afraid.
should the hostage situation really be played out live on TV?
getting a little close to victim blaming there. Backing down when threatened may be better for your health but it also means the biggest bastard gets their own way, something I like to think our society has grown out of (although admittedly it's now the person with the most expensive lawyer that gets their way). Comments of "well they were warned*" really aren't helpful at a time like this.but they knew it was a touchy subject
*when what they were doing was perfectly legal
I agree we are best no thaving fascist draw the line
I think we can be free without the right to wander round insulting folk
Why not give it a go and let me know how well it works for you? I am sure all the recipients from your boss to the police to the people in the street will respect your right to do so and nothing at all will happen to you.
its not an inevitable price though it is inevitable that some things in a free society will offend me.
What happened to be excellent to each other?
Quite possibly the most misleading title for a video ever
Video of the French security services breaking the siege at Dammartin:
Couldn't help but laugh 😆
How much bullying at work do I have to put up with before I get all jihadi?
I'm pretty worried about being invaded!!
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Can anyone remind me of the last time a Muslim Nation launched a full scale military invasion of a Western country?
binners - MemberYes they do. You do. I do. We all do.
Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended. Do it in the street and it's a race to find out what happens first, a punch in the face or a trip in a police car for breach of the peace or similiar. None of it justifies shooting up a magazine but no, you don't have the unadulterated right to wander around insulting people.
monkeyfudger - Member
How much bullying at work do I have to put up with before I get all jihadi?
Depends. Have you got a prophet?
The Mrs keeps saying I only ever think with my penis, does that count? It's kinda like god talking to me.
Can anyone remind me of the last time an Islamic Nation launched a full scale military invasion of a Western country?
Don't think its ever happened.
But only cos none of them can agree on who to invade & they don't have an actual 'invading capability'
Thats what I reckon anyway.
Islamic Nation launched a full scale military invasion of a Western country?
It depends on what you think Israeli is.
Invasion of Spain 711?
[i]Agence France-Presse ?@AFP 3m3 minutes ago
FLASH Charlie Hebdo suspects killed[/i]
Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended. Do it in the street and it's a race to find out what happens first, a punch in the face or a trip in a police car for breach of the peace or similiar. None of it justifies shooting up a magazine but no, you don't have the unadulterated right to insult people.
I do. You do. We all do. I have to accept the consequences of insulting people. The ones you listed. But I have to factor that in with everything I do. As do you. As do we all.
But I still have the freedom to do it, because it is my right in a free society. The same as its everyone else right in a free society. The limits are set by the law. And I'll respect that. But what I won't accept is having the limits dictated by fascists
What we're facing is one group of people dictating that, actually, when certain people are concerned, that right has now been withdrawn. And if one group of people get away with that, I think we can all guess what'll happen next
And this is why, whether we like it or not, we have to do everything in our power as a society, to defend this right.
Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended.
There are a great many things which I have the right to do but doing so at work could get me into trouble - as it happens I'm doing one right this very second by posting this. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
[i]The Associated Press ?@AP 2m2 minutes ago
BREAKING: Police forces storm Paris kosher grocery where gunman holds 5 hostages; woman seen leaving.[/i]
But I still have the freedom to do it, because it is my right in a free society.
You kind of don't though. It's a criminal offence to abuse someone based on race, gender or sexuality. Occassionally religion gets bundled in to that as well (although it shouldn't).
Do it at work, you'll get sacked. Do it at school, you'll get suspended. Do it in the street and it's a race to find out what happens first, a punch in the face or a trip in a police car for breach of the peace or similiar. None of it justifies shooting up a magazine but no, you don't have the unadulterated right to wander around insulting people.
Drawing cartoons won't cause any of that.
aaaaand.....they're dead (apparently). Didn't think it could end any other way to be honest. The desire for martyrdom, killing police and the weapons.
It's a criminal offence to abuse someone based on race, gender or sexuality. Occassionally religion gets bundled in to that as well (although it shouldn't).
Wrecker. Thats my whole point. The limits are set by the law. The laws are made by our democratically elected government. So I know what the limits are , and I'm happy to live within them.
Criticising or ridiculing someones beliefs is not a crime. Nor should it be. Though its obvious there are people who think it should be. These people aren't great fans of democracy and the freedoms it grants us
getting a little close to victim blaming there
no i'm not and if it comes across as this then i'm sorry. everyone has a freedom of speech but when you know that criticism of something in that manner may be seen as an insult that could potentially have repercussions of that nature then i would think carefully about airing those opinions in the first place.
however that does not mean for one second that its ok to murder people in retaliation.
hmm. Making an image of the prophet is presumably a heresy, don't the rest of the none muslim world commit lots of heresies everyday (a new one I learned today,[i] the children[/i] of apostates being in a world of trouble for eg seems overly harsh). Why is this one so important? is this the numero uno top heresy?My line in the sand would be not criticising Islam where as not drawing the prophet is to just show them some basic respect
if so is there a top ten?
i would think carefully about airing those opinions in the first place.
I suspect they thought extremely carefully about it - that's probably why they did it.
binners - Member
I am not sure why folk confuse freedom of speech and the freedom to insult
Its fairly simple. Insults are part of that 'freedom of speech'.You can call me a **** for believing that. I'm a grown up. I can take it
Actually it's not simple at all, it's extremely complex. This debate is often started with an assumption that we support freedom of speech. But that is untrue, we place considerable restrictions on what you can and cannot say eg slander laws, laws on incitement, discrimination etc, Furthermore, from a legal perspective the case is based on whether someone feels offended in many cases eg sex, race discrimination in the workplace.
So establishing what is and isn't acceptable is very challenging. On balance I always verge towards greater liberty and freedom ** (and yet find much of the religion bashing on here offensive (*) and surprised that it is not modded stricter. But other issues are - so clearly there are considerable differences of opinion.)
* constant statements that religious people are insane/have mental issues etc.
** rather give folk like Salmond, Farrage! Griffen airtime so that they can condemn themselves out of their own mouths. They are good at doing that.
So establishing what is and isn't acceptable is very challenging
Not when it's about satirical cartoons it isn't.
Alex Salmond.
"House" 😀
Nick Cleggs comments today that "In a free society people have to be free to offend each other. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other."
This is patently untrue and flies in the face of UK legislation.
We legally protect the right of some not to be offended.
[indeed - get him trying to explain the currency and the house of cards fell over. That's exactly why people should be allowed to speak! Spooky amount of stalking going on ]
Hmm okay ...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3578432,00.html
Seems like two different sets of rules.
I agree with what THM said in general* if not the specific STW case though it is often rude and I am also guilty of that charge..
What we're facing is one group of people dictating that, actually, when certain people are concerned, that right has now been withdrawn. And if one group of people get away with that, I think we can all guess what'll happen next
We have to not call black people the N word?
We have to respect homosexuals?
Women no longer know their place?
Why is this one so important? is this the numero uno top heresy?
Its idolatry though there is the usual SUnni SHia schism with the later having images of the prophet
* first post and he had not mentioned AS when i read it though he never says edit when he edits. Ps this is an edit 😉
Nick Cleggs comments today that "In a free society people have to be free to offend each other. There is no such thing as a right not to be offended. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other."
Never thought I'd agree with Cleggy, but he's bang on the money there!