Insult Muhammed = Free Speach

[Weebler I]

I do. I think that's fairly obvious, they purposefully create images to provoke.
The image after the fire bombings of their office was Mohammed kissing a cartoonist I believe. Their most recent was a depiction of je suis Mohammed. Isn't that retaliation?
They had the worlds attention for a week and that was what they chose to put on the cover.

And by being provocative they cater to their audience.

But their audience isn't provoked by the images, so where do you get the idea that they set out to provoke? that makes no sense, so I make you wrong on that. The only people who were provoked were people who didn't buy the magazine in first place, it wasn't meant for them.

Continuing to do as they had been doing before threats and killings is not evidence that the magazine's raison d'etre is to provoke, it's merely evidence that they won't change how they operate in response to threats and murder by a bunch of people who don't even read the magazine in first place.

It's satirical magazine that some muslim has got wind of along the way, made it a political issue and tried to prevent it from occurring leading to the nutter faction of Islam to go well...nuts.

[Rapid Counter]

As long as Charlie hebdo stay away from Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny im cool with them.

[Run]

I'm libertarian


I'll call anyone what I f.ucking want.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!

[Funky_Monk]

But their audience isn't provoked by the images, so where do you get the idea that they set out to provoke? that makes no sense, so I make you wrong on that. The only people who were provoked were people who didn't buy the magazine in first place, it wasn't meant for them.

Continuing to do as they had been doing before threats and killings is not evidence that the magazine's raison d'etre is to provoke, it's merely evidence that they won't change how they operate in response to threats and murder by a bunch of people who don't even read the magazine in first place.

It's satirical magazine that some muslim has got wind of along the way, made it a political issue and tried to prevent it from occurring leading to the nutter faction of Islam to go well...nuts.

So if the images don't provoke a response with their readership what do they do?

[The Hammer]

I've seen many people online that don't like the whole "Je Suis Charlie" thing with this picture......Do you agree, do they have a point?

They DO have a point.

There is a double standard.

It's "free speech" to bash and ridicule Muslims and Christians too, but not acceptable to bash and ridicule gays and Jews. In most European countries you will be ostracized and in some you can even be imprisoned for writing anything critical of Jews.

The same standard should apply to all religions and identifiable groups.

[Weebler I]

So if the images don't provoke a response with their readership what do they do?

Now you're trying to play on words, you'll have to do better than that.

The readers of the magazine read it for the same reason you and I would read a boxing magazine, they're informed and entertained by it and it offers them a different perspective.

As I've already said, the people who were provoked weren't readers they were a bunch of nutters desperate to take offense and looking for an outlet for their anger because they harbour some grudge against the nation which gave them life. If it wasn't Charlie Hebdo, it would have been some other nutter plan as they were known terror suspects intent on destruction.

[squealpiggy]

They DO have a point.

There is a double standard.

It's "free speech" to bash and ridicule Muslims and Christians too, but not acceptable to bash and ridicule gays and Jews. In most European countries you will be ostracized and in some you can even be imprisoned for writing anything critical of Jews.

For writing anything critical of Jews? There are some countries with rulings against holocaust denial and most free countries limit free speech when it comes to incitement or threats but few places outlaw any criticism of Jews.

There is a difference between Islam and other religions though. Only Islam carries out punishments against non-believers for breaking the rules of their religion. The reason for drawing Muhammad is that Islam forbids it, but also attempts to forbid non-Muslims from doing it as well. That's a bit like Jews attempting to either intimidate or legislate to prevent Gentiles eating pork.

Interestingly enough Islam also forbids the eating of pork, and some Muslims are trying to make pork and alcohol inaccessible to non-Muslims, for example by refusing to handle them while working in a store. Religions all have odd prohibitions, but one religion stands out in trying to force everybody else to adopt those standards too.

[Funky_Monk]

Now you're trying to play on words, you'll have to do better than that.

The readers of the magazine read it for the same reason you and I would read a boxing magazine, they're informed and entertained by it and it offers them a different perspective.

As I've already said, the people who were provoked weren't readers they were a bunch of nutters desperate to take offense and looking for an outlet for their anger because they harbour some grudge against the nation which gave them life. If it wasn't Charlie Hebdo, it would have been some other nutter plan as they were known terror suspects intent on destruction.

I'll play on words when you do. I'm not trying to argue with you or change your mind.

They are provocative images, that's what satire and dark humour like that thrives on.

It stands to reason you wouldn't buy a magazine you think is insulting so I don't see what your point is. I could elaborate but it'd take us down a path that would be unproductive.

If you want I can recommend some other image makers you can read about.
My dissertation was on provocative imagery )
I've done quite a lot of work on where reality meets fantasy as well.

[squealpiggy]

By the way I feel duty-bound to criticise when other religions attempt to force their silly restrictions on others. For example in the US particularly but elsewhere as well you have a movement to prevent their employees from being able to receive health benefits that include contraception, and you also have a movement attempting bafflingly to prevent gays from marrying each other. Among Jews there have been a number of high profile cases of planes being delayed because bearded nitwits in funny hats were so incensed at the idea they may sit near a woman that they insisted on being moved.

Bullshit. If it was down to me the guys would be kicked off the plane and forced to walk. If your bronze age superstitions are so important to you, then you must forgo you use of twentieth century technology and suck it up, Hebrew princess.

[Weebler I]

I'll play on words when you do. I'm not trying to argue with you or change your mind.

They are provocative images, that's what satire and dark humour like that thrives on.

It stands to reason you wouldn't buy a magazine you think is insulting so I don't see what your point is. I could elaborate but it'd take us down a path that would be unproductive.

If you want I can recommend some other image makers you can read about.
My dissertation was on provocative imagery )
I've done quite a lot of work on where reality meets fantasy as well.

Your inference was that they set out to provoke the anger of Muslims, that wasn't true. So you switched your argument to "all satire is provocative" just to try to make your statements accurate, i.e. playing on words.

Let's be clear, these images weren't to provoke anger of Muslims, they they were there to entertain and inform the magazine's readers - i.e. the people who purchase it, the people who want to read it, the people who enjoy it and pay for the pleasure.

Who reads a magazine to get angry? If a magazine offends you, do you read it? do you expect that magazine was written with you in mind? Of course not, because you won't buy again, so the notion that the magazine writers set out to provoke anger in people who don't read their magazine is a fallacious one. If people don't like it, they don't buy it, ignore it, it's not for them.

All the groups who were the subject of the cartoons did ignore it, except one, the group with a bunch of brainwashed nutters ready to kill at the drop of a hat.

Now I want to ask you, are you suggesting such cartoons are banned?