Charlie Hebdo

Originally posted by FMF
That you seem not understand what the phrasal verb "come across" means and that you don't seem/or are pretending not to realize that it will always refer to and involve differing perceptions of people, goes straight to the heart of the point you were trying to make and hits it right between the eyes. 😉

That you do NOT seem to understand (or maybe you do, and are just "giving me the piss" ) that I fully understand what I write (unlike some others in this forum) is the problem here and my point (my actual point, not my "misunderstanding" (as characterized by you) to shift emphasis from my point) stands, if you would care to look past the opportunity to bad-mouth me (but of course you don't, bad-mouthing certain people like GB and myself is your entire raison d'etre ). You excel in this kind of misdirection, this subtle shift from the point to some nebulous opinion that I "don't understand something". All of your etymology, while correct, means nothing. It's not the point. I don't care how it "comes across" to you, and of course, you don't either. You're just capitalizing on the opportunity to denigrate GB, as usual. You want to make him look bad, period. And that, of course, has nothing to do with how he "comes across" to anybody, least of all you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From Wikipedia:

"Piss Christ is a 1987 photograph by the American artist and photographer Andres Serrano. It depicts a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. The piece was a winner of the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art's "Awards in the Visual Arts" competition, which was sponsored in part by the National Endowment fo ...[text shortened]... t, generally. I guess there always might be a wacko or two out there, but this is not the norm.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
If the "average" Muslim is "deeply offended" by a silly cartoon they still have a long way to go.

So they have to end up with more or less the same sensitivities, sensibilities and sense of decency as you? That is the purpose of the exercise of freedom of speech in your view? These hundreds of millions of Muslims have been insulted and have done nothing. What more do you want from them? You want them to have the same opinion as you as to what is and isn't offensive?

Originally posted by Suzianne

That you do NOT seem to understand (or maybe you do, and are just "giving me the piss" ) that I fully understand what I write (unlike some others in this forum) is the problem here and my point (my actual point, not my "misunderstanding" (as characterized by you) to shift emphasis from my point) stands, if you would care to look past the opportunity to bad-mouth me (but of course you don't, bad-mouthing certain people like GB and myself is your entire raison d'etre ). You excel in this kind of misdirection, this subtle shift from the point to some nebulous opinion that I "don't understand something". All of your etymology, while correct, means nothing. It's not the point. I don't care how it "comes across" to you, and of course, you don't either. You're just capitalizing on the opportunity to denigrate GB, as usual. You want to make him look bad, period. And that, of course, has nothing to do with how he "comes across" to anybody, least of all you.

When someone says so and so "comes across" like X, then it is their opinion of how and why that person behaves as they do. If you don't care how X or Y or Z "comes across" to me, that's fine by me. I also support your right to denigrate people, as you put it, including me.

Originally posted by FMF
I have already conceded that I believe you are telling the truth when you say you don't think CH wanted/wants/will want to insult Muslims. I have lived in a Muslim majority country here for many years and of course never seen a portrayal of the likeness of the prophet (created here, at any rate) because of course it is taboo and seen by Muslims to be a very insu ...[text shortened]... CH. You're there in Europe. So perhaps I just have to accept what you say about what CH wanted.

Pretty sure CH was not "unaware" of this fact at all, but they just didn't give a damn. As it should be.

By the way, I have recently heard that not being allowed to show Mohammed is in fact not at all a belief carried by "Islam", only by some Muslims. Can you comment on this?

Originally posted by FMF
Did he call for the extermination of the Jews? Is your source CH or some other critic of his views or did he indeed propose genocide? I don't know the answers. You tell me.

I will google this later. Must work now.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]That you do NOT seem to understand (or maybe you do, and are just "giving me the piss" ) that I fully understand what I write (unlike some others in this forum) is the problem here and my point (my actual point, not my "misunderstanding" (as characterized by you) to shift emphasis from my point) stands, if you would care to look past the opportunity to bad-mo ...[text shortened]... , that's fine by me. I also support your right to denigrate people, as you put it, including me.

LOL, here we go again.

Sorry, I'm done, have fun playing with yourself.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
By the way, I have recently heard that not being allowed to show Mohammed is in fact not at all a belief carried by "Islam", only by some Muslims. Can you comment on this?

I have never ever seen a visual depiction of Muhammed and I have never before heard any Muslim say what you are saying. I support CH's right to deliberately offend Muslims. I support your right to claim that the cartoons were not insulting and that CH didn't seek to offend Muslims.

Originally posted by Suzianne
LOL, here we go again.

Sorry, I'm done, have fun playing with yourself.

I support your right to dislike and criticize the way you think I "come across".

Originally posted by Suzianne
I would amend those two things to something vastly more important:

1. Love the Lord God with all your heart.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

All else follows from these.

Why does it have to be # 1 and #2? what is wrong with just loving your neighbor as yourself? Those two don't have to be connected.

I am sure an ethical atheist would follow #2 without the need to follow rule #1.

Of course that means that said atheist would be automatically hated or at least distrusted by several billion people.

Which just goes to show you how people can be clever enough to write all those pithy saying in all the religious documents passed down from antiquity but not intelligent enough to see a scam when they encounter it but to fall for the BS hook line and sinker.

It's a sad comment on the overall intelligence of the human race.

And nowhere as much as the collective greed that is killing out planet, and half of those people mistakenly think some deity is going to come down and put a bandaid on their knees and fix all the planetary boo boo's.

The fact that the alleged deities allowed literally hundreds of millions of people to die by rules at least partly due to religious doctrine proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that either: A, no god was involved in the making of ANY human religion or B, if a god was involved it has taken a strict hands off stance ever since even though biblical verses tell of a god ORDERING the death of enemy tribes, enemies because they don't worship the same god.

Why people can't see though this obvious scam is beyond me and it points to the fact that humans probably don't deserve this jewel of a planet we live on and will in fact drive themselves extinct and even then, no deity will show up.

That in fact might be the ultimate goal of a deity, to get rid of this human cancer infecting the planet if you allow for a real deity to be here.

Originally posted by FMF
I have never ever seen a visual depiction of Muhammed and I have never before heard any Muslim say what you are saying. I support CH's right to deliberately offend Muslims. I support your right to claim that the cartoons were not insulting and that CH didn't seek to offend Muslims.

And I for one absolutely support your right to support my right to make claims about CH.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why does it have to be # 1 and #2? what is wrong with just loving your neighbor as yourself? Those two don't have to be connected.

I am sure an ethical atheist would follow #2 without the need to follow rule #1.

Of course that means that said atheist would be automatically hated or at least distrusted by several billion people.

Which just goes to ...[text shortened]... , to get rid of this human cancer infecting the planet if you allow for a real deity to be here.

I don't particularly love my neighbor. I like the dude, but "love" sounds weird. I tend to think it cheapens the meaning of the word.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Why does it have to be # 1 and #2? what is wrong with just loving your neighbor as yourself? Those two don't have to be connected.

I am sure an ethical atheist would follow #2 without the need to follow rule #1.

Of course that means that said atheist would be automatically hated or at least distrusted by several billion people.

>same old, same old, heard it all before snipped mercifully<

You know, I'd have no problem (none, zero, zip, nada) with people ignoring #1 in favor of #2, IF (and I cannot capitalize IF quite enough here) they would ACTUALLY DO #2.

The problem here is that most people, even Christians, DON'T. IF a significant portion of the world population ACTUALLY did #2, instead of giving it lip service, the Great Tribulation would probably not happen for a long, long time. There is WAY too much hate in the world now, perhaps way too much to even consider reversing the trend.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I don't particularly love my neighbor. I like the dude, but "love" sounds weird. I tend to think it cheapens the meaning of the word.

BUT, could you treat him as you would like to be treated?

How about if he lost his home, through no fault of his own? Could you take him and his family into your home and care for them through their time of difficulty? Would you not appreciate such an action from him?

Using "love" in this sense doesn't "cheapen" the word. It raises the importance of the rest of the sentence. It raises the rest of the sentence to the level of the word "love". To "love" your fellow man, AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF, is the entire point here.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
By the way, I have recently heard that not being allowed to show Mohammed is in fact not at all a belief carried by "Islam", only by some Muslims. Can you comment on this?

I'm not 100% sure, but I've heard that Islam is against showing any sort of "graven images" of people. This is generally regarded as even photographs. I think the intended meaning of this is to avoid people worshipping the images of people as idols. This has widely been circulated as the reason why chess sets from Islamic countries or cultures do not show people or their faces on their chess pieces. I imagine that a "graven image" of Mohammed would be particularly insulting for this reason, especially if this tenet is in the Koran, written by Mohammed.

I'm not speaking as an authority on Islam, so grain of salt and all that, but this is what I've heard.