How many Syrian children are coming here?

[jjlynn27]

rscott said:

Oh dear. Mr Watson has made himself look somewhat stupid on Twitter:-

https://www.indy100.com/article/sweden-donald-trum...

Are you actually saying that this is the same guy, who, according to one of the PH dimwits, was 'calling out' celebrities for not doing something that they said they would?

[Goaty Bill 2]

Hosenbugler said:

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?

Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?

So its perfectly ok to accept that violent death may be the outcome if you draw the wrong type of cartoon and that its acceptable that such happens after drawing that cartoon?

In all fairness he answered that by saying "Of course not."

[Rovinghawk]

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?

Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?

Not wishing to give in to threats? Wishing to assert the right of free speech which you would seem happy to deny them?

[Hosenbugler]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Hosenbugler said:

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?

Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?

So its perfectly ok to accept that violent death may be the outcome if you draw the wrong type of cartoon and that its acceptable that such happens after drawing that cartoon?

In all fairness he answered that by saying "Of course not."

Generic term for that statement, "weak excuse" . In the same street as "allegedly" .

[Mark Benson]

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Hosenbugler said:

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?

Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?

So its perfectly ok to accept that violent death may be the outcome if you draw the wrong type of cartoon and that its acceptable that such happens after drawing that cartoon?

In all fairness he answered that by saying "Of course not."

He then followed it by "but the risks/outcome are known" which appears to me to be capitulation.

The point is, drawing a cartoon of Jesus, Mohamed, Shiva or any religion's deity should not, in any civilized country result in the followers of that religion finding violence justified by the publication of that cartoon.

Just because we know there is a risk, doesn't mean we should accept it in a secular western country, regardless of how childish, unfunny or even insulting the depiction might be.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Troubleatmill said:

e21Mark said:

Why though? Why do some hold a sneering desire to rob some folk of their hope? I'm agnostic myself and as such, far from convinced of the existence of God. That doesn't mean that some part of me doesn't hope there might be a benevolent, forgiving God though. I know some cite the thousands of killings that have been committed in the name of religion but, were all religion to cease to be tomorrow, man would still kill one another. It's something we appear driven to do.

Extremist or terrorist are not Muslim though. They are no more representative of being Muslim than the KKK are of being Christians. There are many Muslims who live peaceful lives as part of our society. There are Muslim soldiers serving in our armed forces. It won't be enough though. The hate, suspicion and division run too deep.

Said Sky Fairy has been instrumental in dictating that 30+ Million be smitten in his name in just 1 book.
Evidence: Start with the Old Testament - and keep your own "God body bag count."
She/ He/ It... is deranged beyond measure.

But hey... God loves YOU.


Edit:
Let's celebrate by smashing the skulls of the children of our enemies against some bloody big rocks.
Religion is awesome!!!

You all know the words... join in and imagine Boney M singing it with you.....

1 By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
2 We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
3 For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
4 How shall we sing the LORD'S song in a strange land?
5 If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.
6 If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.
7 Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.
8 O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.
9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

You do understand that the Psalms were written by Hebrew / Israelite poet(s), not considered the dictated word of God?
That particular Psalm relates to a time when the Babylonians had 'razed to the foundations' the city of Jerusalem and was holding the remaining population in captivity and slavery.
The phrase "that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us." would seem to indicate that the Babylonians had just dashed out the brains of a few Hebrew children. These things seem to have been pretty common practice back then amongst many tribes.

I guess some Hebrew guy was pretty angry when he wrote that last line.

And recall, "turn the other cheek" was a Christian thing, not a Hebrew/Jewish thing.

[Goaty Bill 2]

Mark Benson said:

Goaty Bill 2 said:

Hosenbugler said:

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

But should the use of a cartoon, however unfunny it might be, be met with (lethal, in at least high profile case in France) violence? Is that proportional?

Of course not. But the risks/outcome are known. So why would you do it?

So its perfectly ok to accept that violent death may be the outcome if you draw the wrong type of cartoon and that its acceptable that such happens after drawing that cartoon?

In all fairness he answered that by saying "Of course not."

He then followed it by "but the risks/outcome are known" which appears to me to be capitulation.

The point is, drawing a cartoon of Jesus, Mohamed, Shiva or any religion's deity should not, in any civilized country result in the followers of that religion finding violence justified by the publication of that cartoon.

Just because we know there is a risk, doesn't mean we should accept it in a secular western country, regardless of how childish, unfunny or even insulting the depiction might be.

I certainly don't dispute any of your last two sentences, I will allow iSore to defend his own position I think .

The Danish cartoons as I previously mentioned are a fairly strange case in themselves.

I would argue that Charlie Hebdo goes so far out of it's way to be obscenely and tastelessly offensive, I could only imagine it's target audience, and I prefer not to.
They deserve censure, but again not censorship.

I think I have adequately made my case for criticism and debate over insult and mockery back on page 14 (as it appears in my browser).

[iSore]

Deptford Draylons said:

I didn't think you'd have any ability to back up your own ravings, and so it proves.
You are a retard if you think one religion is so special and its followers so delicate as to be singled out to be immune from any mocking or criticism. That you then go on to infer anyone taking this position is a far right extremist akin to the Nazis and EDL etc, only shows your hysterical reaction.

People that think like you on this subject ( thankfully very few ) are very dangerous and weak people, easily intimidated under the direct threat of violent reprisal into making subjects not open to mocking, criticism and debate. There are a good few countries like this, but it would be a massive retarded step if the UK did this.

I only encourage you to reply further. Each time you do so you expose a little bit more of your own intolerance and stupidity on the subject for you to be totally discredited as anyone reasonable.

Did you write that by yourself?

[iSore]

Mark Benson said:

He then followed it by "but the risks/outcome are known" which appears to me to be capitulation.

The point is, drawing a cartoon of Jesus, Mohamed, Shiva or any religion's deity should not, in any civilized country result in the followers of that religion finding violence justified by the publication of that cartoon.

Just because we know there is a risk, doesn't mean we should accept it in a secular western country, regardless of how childish, unfunny or even insulting the depiction might be.

Not overtly going out of your way to insult someone's religion is not capitulation. I don't feel the need to do it myself, do you?

[Deptford Draylons]

iSore said:

Deptford Draylons said:

I didn't think you'd have any ability to back up your own ravings, and so it proves.
You are a retard if you think one religion is so special and its followers so delicate as to be singled out to be immune from any mocking or criticism. That you then go on to infer anyone taking this position is a far right extremist akin to the Nazis and EDL etc, only shows your hysterical reaction.

People that think like you on this subject ( thankfully very few ) are very dangerous and weak people, easily intimidated under the direct threat of violent reprisal into making subjects not open to mocking, criticism and debate. There are a good few countries like this, but it would be a massive retarded step if the UK did this.

I only encourage you to reply further. Each time you do so you expose a little bit more of your own intolerance and stupidity on the subject for you to be totally discredited as anyone reasonable.

Did you write that by yourself?

Yes. Was it too hard for you to comprehend and write and reasoned response as to why one religion is so special and why anyone that says not is an EDL fan ?

[andymadmak]

iSore said:

Not overtly going out of your way to insult someone's religion is not capitulation. I don't feel the need to do it myself, do you?

But where do you draw the line? The Danish cartoons were hardly horrid were they??

You're on a very slippery slope if you even so much as hint at some level of justification for the scope and scale of the responses that the cartoons generated.
One could be simplistic and say that the Charlie Hebdo stuff was beyond the pale, but even then the answer would have been a protest perhaps, or a court case maybe, but never, ever ever a massacre! By all means you can tut at people who go over the top at criticising religion, but by the same measure you should be celebrating and vigorously defending the society that we live in that allows people the freedom to express themselves in whatever way they choose without fear for their lives!

[iSore]

Deptford Draylons said:

Yes. Was it too hard for you to comprehend and write and reasoned response as to why one religion is so special ?

Who said Islam was special?

Please show me where I actually said, or even implied that. If you can.

[iSore]

andymadmak said:

But where do you draw the line? The Danish cartoons were hardly horrid were they??

You're on a very slippery slope if you even so much as hint at some level of justification for the scope and scale of the responses that the cartoons generated.
One could be simplistic and say that the Charlie Hebdo stuff was beyond the pale, but even then the answer would have been a protest perhaps, or a court case maybe, but never, ever ever a massacre! By all means you can tut at people who go over the top at criticising religion, but by the same measure you should be celebrating and vigorously defending the society that we live in that allows people the freedom to express themselves in whatever way they choose without fear for their lives!

I can see where you're coming from, but it's not just the cartoons is it? Look, for example, at the West's exploits in the middle east and in (mainly) Islamic countries. A lot of hate for the West is nurtured there, and the cartoons may well be the tinder to light the fire.

So no, religious violence is not acceptable, but is understandable. All I'm advocating is that given what's happening in the world today, we really should avoid inflaming an already precarious situation.

[andymadmak]

iSore said:

So no, religious violence is not acceptable, but is understandable. .

No it isn't. It really isn't.

[Deptford Draylons]

iSore said:

Deptford Draylons said:

Yes. Was it too hard for you to comprehend and write and reasoned response as to why one religion is so special ?

Who said Islam was special?

Please show me where I actually said, or even implied that. If you can.

You've only made the case for Islam because of a threat of violence. Don't do it you've told us, like we've had fair warning that if you do you will get killed.
You've set yourself up as a moral arbiter on the cartoons declaring them unfunny to yourself, therefore it must be unfunny and not seen by anyone else. Good of you to set yourself up as such, but I don't need you to tell me what is funny and declaring what you don't find amusing off limits.
I think you're a little sensitive on the subject, mainly when it involves Islam for some reason. I'll leave you to say why this one in particular.
If you object to such cartoons and publications as CH and any mocking of religion, the list of stuff you want people simply not to do would be a huge one involving just about every publication and broadcaster in this country. Perhaps your next argument to show how fairly you are interested in the non mocking of all religions, should be to get Family Guy banned, or how about the cartoonists at the Guardian poking fun and the C of E ?

It should have been very simple to think that someone using violence and death to enforce their view is some kinda obvious tyranny. Not to you though.

[iSore]

Deptford Draylons said:

You've only made the case for Islam because of a threat of violence. Don't do it you've told us, like we've had fair warning that if you do you will get killed.
You've set yourself up as a moral arbiter on the cartoons declaring them unfunny to yourself, therefore it must be unfunny and not seen by anyone else. Good of you to set yourself up as such, but I don't need you to tell me what is funny and declaring what you don't find amusing off limits.
I think you're a little sensitive on the subject, mainly when it involves Islam for some reason. I'll leave you to say why this one in particular.
If you object to such cartoons and publications as CH and any mocking of religion, the list of stuff you want people simply not to do would be a huge one involving just about every publication and broadcaster in this country. Perhaps your next argument to show how fairly you are interested in the non mocking of all religions, should be to get Family Guy banned, or how about the cartoonists at the Guardian poking fun and the C of E ?

It should have been very simple to think that someone using violence and death to enforce their view is some kinda obvious tyranny. Not to you though.

I guess we shall have to disagree on this one. I'm not overly sensitive on Islam (I am CofE) but I can understand why a group of hate fuelled extremists committed the Paris massacre.

As simple as that.

[Phud]

iSore, how do you make your piece with your god over the fact that the religion you are saying should be understood states,

Jesus was not the son of god and just a prophet? So in its book says that your religion is false? Also that by leaving its holy land has the aim to convert everywhere to islam?

Couple with this question, why do so many muslim not try to change their own countries but seem to enjoy reverting western culture to the one they support?

[Deptford Draylons]

iSore said:

Deptford Draylons said:

You've only made the case for Islam because of a threat of violence. Don't do it you've told us, like we've had fair warning that if you do you will get killed.
You've set yourself up as a moral arbiter on the cartoons declaring them unfunny to yourself, therefore it must be unfunny and not seen by anyone else. Good of you to set yourself up as such, but I don't need you to tell me what is funny and declaring what you don't find amusing off limits.
I think you're a little sensitive on the subject, mainly when it involves Islam for some reason. I'll leave you to say why this one in particular.
If you object to such cartoons and publications as CH and any mocking of religion, the list of stuff you want people simply not to do would be a huge one involving just about every publication and broadcaster in this country. Perhaps your next argument to show how fairly you are interested in the non mocking of all religions, should be to get Family Guy banned, or how about the cartoonists at the Guardian poking fun and the C of E ?

It should have been very simple to think that someone using violence and death to enforce their view is some kinda obvious tyranny. Not to you though.

I guess we shall have to disagree on this one. I'm not overly sensitive on Islam (I am CofE) but I can understand why a group of hate fuelled extremists committed the Paris massacre.

As simple as that.

I can see why they did it too - they are fking nuts who are overly sensitive to any comment, criticism or mocking of their religion. The answer isn't to indulge them and set one religion and its followers up as special though.
Your short term fix of thinking if only CH and co would shut up it would help is wrong. Rolling over will just lead to shifting onto another section which is off limits under the same threat of tyranny.

[Mark Benson]

iSore said:

Mark Benson said:

He then followed it by "but the risks/outcome are known" which appears to me to be capitulation.

The point is, drawing a cartoon of Jesus, Mohamed, Shiva or any religion's deity should not, in any civilized country result in the followers of that religion finding violence justified by the publication of that cartoon.

Just because we know there is a risk, doesn't mean we should accept it in a secular western country, regardless of how childish, unfunny or even insulting the depiction might be.

Not overtly going out of your way to insult someone's religion is not capitulation. I don't feel the need to do it myself, do you?

I don't mock any religion because I'm not a dick and I believe that people are free to believe what they want as long as they don't try to impose their world views and rules on others by force or the threat of force.

But your responses appear to be saying that if someone does insult another's belief (which many disagree with), the reaction of violence, even fatal violence is a justified response and that's something I cannot and will not condone.

[Rovinghawk]

If someone has an imaginary friend I can't see any problem with someone else taking the mick out of it.