Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 12:35:24 GMT -5
Despite the title this article is not about religion so I am requesting it remain here unless/until it takes a turn. tyia Thoughts anyone?
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?smid=pl-share&_r=0 In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.
1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order. 2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid. 3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. . . .
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 10, 2015 13:07:33 GMT -5
When I was growing up, I got no reaction from my brother if I kept all my body parts on my side of the car. Some days all it took was to place a hand slightly across that center line to get him yelled at by Mom for hitting me. Some days I would have to push it a little more -some days a lot more. But if I wanted a reaction, I could get a reaction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 13:30:57 GMT -5
Not guite getting the analogy billisonboard I will have to think about it. The cartoonist is you, the jihadist is your brother? Who's your mother? Does anyone have a gun to their head in your story? To me that is one the larger points of the article. Thanks for your thoughts btw .
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 10, 2015 14:28:04 GMT -5
Newton's second law aplies in this case: for each action there is a reaction!<br>In an ideal case, you push on a block hard enough, it will move=action and reaction.<br>In this particular case Charlie Hebdo aplied a lot of force on an object that sits precariously on a tiny bity corner. Push it too hard and it will come down on you before you have time to get out of the way.<br><br>As I said it on a different tread, insulting the prophet is not something taken lightly. According to the Quran it is punishable by death.<br><br>When they decided to run those cartoons they knew exactly what they are to expect. France has probably one of the highest percentage of Muslims amongst the " Christian" countries.<br>Not saying that what the shooters did is right but what the paper did is not right either.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 10, 2015 14:30:12 GMT -5
People can say what they wanna say.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,131
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 10, 2015 14:45:33 GMT -5
Despite the title this article is not about religion so I am requesting it remain here unless/until it takes a turn. tyia Thoughts anyone?
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?smid=pl-share&_r=0 In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.
1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order. 2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid. 3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. . . .
if you substitute "free speech, including blasphemy" for "blasphemy" above, it is a near-perfect reflection of my view on free speech.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 10, 2015 14:52:13 GMT -5
I dont' really care what people say. Yak, yak, yak. Just words.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 10, 2015 14:52:45 GMT -5
Remember, sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,716
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 10, 2015 15:00:30 GMT -5
I disagree with point #3. Just because it is offensive does not make saying it valuable.
I remember when there was art that was composed of the Virgin Mary and human feces. There were quite a few people against that and that's about as close as I can think of as an example to what Charles Hebdo did. I think many people seem pro-speech when it is against something they dislike such as Islam but not so much when they see it as wrong.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 10, 2015 15:00:32 GMT -5
People can say what they wanna say. Charlie Hebdo tought so too. The two shooters had a different opinion. The world is more than the U.S. and the U.S. is not the World! Nobody outside US cares about our Constitution just as much as we don't care about theirs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 15:11:05 GMT -5
Despite the title this article is not about religion so I am requesting it remain here unless/until it takes a turn. tyia Thoughts anyone?
douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/07/the-blasphemy-we-need/?smid=pl-share&_r=0 In the wake of the vicious murders at the offices of the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo today, let me offer three tentative premises about blasphemy in a free society.
1) The right to blaspheme (and otherwise give offense) is essential to the liberal order. 2) There is no duty to blaspheme, a society’s liberty is not proportional to the quantity of blasphemy it produces, and under many circumstances the choice to give offense (religious and otherwise) can be reasonably criticized as pointlessly antagonizing, needlessly cruel, or simply stupid. 3) The legitimacy and wisdom of criticism directed at offensive speech is generally inversely proportional to the level of mortal danger that the blasphemer brings upon himself.
We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed. . . .
if you substitute "free speech, including blasphemy" for "blasphemy" above, it is a near-perfect reflection of my view on free speech. Mine also
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 10, 2015 15:27:35 GMT -5
When you push, And you push, And push, Then push some more, Keep pushing, Push harder, And harder, And even harder, Then get a violent reaction - I struggle sympathizing with, "See, I told you they were violent".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 15:32:13 GMT -5
I disagree with point #3. Just because it is offensive does not make saying it valuable.
I remember when there was art that was composed of the Virgin Mary and human feces. There were quite a few people against that and that's about as close as I can think of as an example to what Charles Hebdo did. I think many people seem pro-speech when it is against something they dislike such as Islam but not so much when they see it as wrong.
It is not saying it is valuable because it is offensive. It is saying if the offense is something that someone may kill you for it is valuable because if you shut up due to the threat of violence your free society is gone..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 15:35:21 GMT -5
People can say what they wanna say. Charlie Hebdo tought so too. The two shooters had a different opinion. The world is more than the U.S. and the U.S. is not the World! Nobody outside US cares about our Constitution just as much as we don't care about theirs. Hebdo wasn't in the US . It is a larger issue than the US constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 15:40:01 GMT -5
When you push, And you push, And push, Then push some more, Keep pushing, Push harder, And harder, And even harder, Then get a violent reaction - I struggle sympathizing with, "See, I told you they were violent". So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing?
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 10, 2015 15:53:03 GMT -5
Charlie Hebdo tought so too. The two shooters had a different opinion. The world is more than the U.S. and the U.S. is not the World! Nobody outside US cares about our Constitution just as much as we don't care about theirs. Hebdo wasn't in the US . It is a larger issue than the US constitution.
That was the point that I was making. France just like US has a Constitution that gives and guarantees the freedom of expression no mater of the nature of that. Not all countries have that and we should stop thinking that everybody HAS to do what we do and think like we do
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Jan 10, 2015 16:02:30 GMT -5
When you push, And you push, And push, Then push some more, Keep pushing, Push harder, And harder, And even harder, Then get a violent reaction - I struggle sympathizing with, "See, I told you they were violent". So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing? No! Hebdo should've realized that there might be repercussions to his comments and either not make the comments or take the necessary precautions to protect himself from retaliation of any kind. When you insult a billion people's beliefs you should expect a billion people to respond. The response will definetly measure up with the insult. Again for the ...teen time: insulting the prophet is punishable with death!
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jan 10, 2015 16:05:34 GMT -5
I am still in a quandary why this discussion is on the politics board. When I discussed the problem of the murders I was told it was not appropriate for the politics board. Actually, I wasn't told. It was just moved.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 16:39:17 GMT -5
I am still in a quandary why this discussion is on the politics board. When I discussed the problem of the murders I was told it was not appropriate for the politics board. Actually, I wasn't told. It was just moved. I don't know about your thread but this is a thread about free speech. How is that not political?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 16:46:59 GMT -5
Hebdo wasn't in the US . It is a larger issue than the US constitution.
That was the point that I was making. France just like US has a Constitution that gives and guarantees the freedom of expression no mater of the nature of that. Not all countries have that and we should stop thinking that everybody HAS to do what we do and think like we do So we are shouldn't as countries ensure residents and visitors abide by the laws and rules of the country they are in? They can "think " whatever they want to btw in this country.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 10, 2015 16:49:25 GMT -5
It's really more applicable to Current Events, so I've moved it there. It's really not about politics, per se. Free speech isn't necessarily a political topic. The subject of this thread is really more a cultural issue than a political one. Cultures are clashing world-wide. They have been throughout history, regardless of politics.
mmhmm, Politics Moderator
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 10, 2015 16:51:09 GMT -5
There was a Letter to the Editor in today's paper that summed it up best.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 16:51:48 GMT -5
It's really more applicable to Current Events, so I've moved it there. It's really not about politics, per se. Free speech isn't necessarily a political topic. The subject of this thread is really more a cultural issue than a political one. Cultures are clashing world-wide. They have been throughout history, regardless of politics. mmhmm, Politics Moderator Free speech is about as political as it gets but do what you will with it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 10, 2015 16:54:32 GMT -5
From the French Constitution: ...The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults.... link to source
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 3, 2024 1:20:21 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2015 17:13:15 GMT -5
From the French Constitution: ...The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults.... link to sourceand? This cartoon was one of those exceptions?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jan 10, 2015 17:33:56 GMT -5
From the French Constitution: ...The Press Law of 1881, as amended, guarantees freedom of the press, subject to several exceptions. The Pleven Act of 1972 (after Justice Minister René Pleven) prohibits incitement to hatred, discrimination, slander and racial insults.... link to sourceand? This cartoon was one of those exceptions? Not being French, and not being involved in making those decisions, I don't really know. I just brought it in for information.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 10, 2015 17:41:06 GMT -5
When you push, And you push, And push, Then push some more, Keep pushing, Push harder, And harder, And even harder, Then get a violent reaction - I struggle sympathizing with, "See, I told you they were violent". So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing? By whom? I don't think anyone should have prevented them. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone other than the police officers killed.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,499
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 10, 2015 18:01:20 GMT -5
So Hebdo should have been prevented from pushing? By whom? I don't think anyone should have prevented them. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone other than the police officers killed. I imagine you have a bit of sympathy for the shoppers at the Kosher marker, no?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,477
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 10, 2015 18:45:59 GMT -5
By whom? I don't think anyone should have prevented them. I just don't have a lot of sympathy for anyone other than the police officers killed. I imagine you have a bit of sympathy for the shoppers at the Kosher marker, no? I see that situation as not within the scope of this thread. But yes, even more than a bit.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Jan 10, 2015 20:42:39 GMT -5
Cultures are clashing world-wide. They have been throughout history, regardless of politics.
When someone chooses to either visit or move to another culture common sense says to blend in, not try to change it. If you don't like the culture you are visiting, go home.
|
|