Paris shootings

[Bjornebye]

Talk about spectacularly missing the point. Yes it's wrong that cunts decide to kill people over a cartoon. The fact is, those cunts exist. Why kick the wasps nest and put kids and others in danger? 

 

RB: I missed the bit where Christian extremists riddled the Monty Python lot with bullets. 

[Rico1304]

1 hour ago, Nelly-Torres said:

At least the trannies are getting a day off... 

they’ve had a good day. 

[Rico1304]

31 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Yeah. You can't get upset by a deliberately inflammatory cartoon. It's only the murals of bankers of ambiguous ethnicity that people are allowed to complain about. 

Mask slips again, I don’t even know why you bother putting it back on.  

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

10 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

 

What people cannot do is to try and enforce their blasphemy laws upon everyone else. They cannot threaten violence against other people, demand their sacking for not following said blasphemy laws, and force those people into hiding.

 

Yes. Nobody really suggested that they could do that though, did they? 

 

Plus, I'm not sure if any/all of these things have actually happened. To be honest, I haven't really followed the story that closely. I presume that you're right though as, generally, people with an obsessive interest in a particular subject tend to know the facts. Although they can tend to twist them too. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Just now, Rico1304 said:

Mask slips again, I don’t even know why you bother putting it back on.  

Says you. In this very thread. Priceless. 

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Says you. In this very thread. Priceless. 

Yes, it was me. Very well done. 
 

You somehow think the blokes who shot some journalists because of a drawing of something THAT DOESNT FUCKING EXIST are the victims.  
 

Hey, you drew my unicorn, I’m executing every last motherfucking one of you.  
 

 

[Strontium]

Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

Yes. Nobody really suggested that they could do that though, did they? 

 

Plus, I'm not sure if any/all of these things have actually happened. To be honest, I haven't really followed the story that closely. I presume that you're right though as, generally, people with an obsessive interest in a particular subject tend to know the facts. Although they can tend to twist them too. 

 

Well, put it this way - you chose not to criticise those people indulging in intimidation and threats of violence, but instead aimed your fire on those opposed to those people. And just for good measure, you tried to make a tenuous link between Jews complaining about offensive Jewish stereotypes and Muslims outraged about drawings of Muhammad.

 

Yes, imagine a British liberal having an obsessive interest in free speech in the UK, the mind boggles eh.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

3 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

Talk about spectacularly missing the point. Yes it's wrong that cunts decide to kill people over a cartoon. The fact is, those cunts exist. Why kick the wasps nest and put kids and others in danger? 

 

RB: I missed the bit where Christian extremists riddled the Monty Python lot with bullets. 

It's a bit from both columns, for me. 

 

The cartoons cause offence. It's just a bit sad and trollish to show them knowing that. But, then there's the freedom of expression and genuine academic use side of the argument too. 

 

But, the whole debate seems to be lacking important (alleged) context. Specifically, that the cartoon shown was of Big Mo with a bomb for a hat and that this allegedly resulted in abusive terms being used against the Muslim children in the class. 

 

These claims obviously need to be substantiated (as does the claim that the teacher has been forced into hiding - even though some people's prejudices have resulted in this unsubstantiated claim being cited as fact) but if showing the cartoon has caused an atmosphere in the classroom and resulted in Muslim pupils being verbally abused then I think the parents have a right to complain and even question the teacher's future suitability for employment. And, it's a bit shitty to imply that parent's who may have these legitimate concerns are instead just a bunch of ranty, mad, potentially violent religious extremists. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

6 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Yes, it was me. Very well done. 
 

You somehow think the blokes who shot some journalists because of a drawing of something THAT DOESNT FUCKING EXIST are the victims.  
 

Hey, you drew my unicorn, I’m executing every last motherfucking one of you.  
 

 

This is insane made up bobbins even by your standards. Amazing. 

[Rico1304]

It’s worth noting if he’d fucked one of the kids it’s likely he’d be in less danger than having shown a drawing.  

[Strontium]

3 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

It’s worth noting if he’d fucked one of the kids it’s likely he’d be in less danger than having shown a drawing.  

 

He'd probably be viewed as a prophet.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Well, put it this way - you chose not to criticise those people indulging in intimidation and threats of violence, but instead aimed your fire on those opposed to those people. And just for good measure, you tried to make a tenuous link between Jews complaining about offensive Jewish stereotypes and Muslims outraged about drawings of Muhammad.

 

Yes, imagine a British liberal having an obsessive interest in free speech in the UK, the mind boggles eh.

I didn't criticise the people who allegedly threatened violence etc because I don't criticise unsubstantiated allegations and am, therefore, not in any rush to do so before any facts are fully established. Unlike some. 

 

I'll agree to disagree with your interpretation of the mural. I'll instead listen to the artist who confirmed that the people in the mural with the characteristics complained about are not actually Jewish, but are instead named, non-Jewish people. And, obviously, for some reason, you imply that Muslims were just complaining about bog standard depictions of Muhammed and don't use your previous descriptive words of "offensive" etc. Now, I wonder why you'd do that?... 

 

 

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

I didn't criticise the people who allegedly threatened violence etc because I don't criticise unsubstantiated allegations and am, therefore, not in any rush to do so before any facts are fully established. Unlike some. 

 

I'll agree to disagree with your interpretation of the mural. I'll instead listen to the artist who confirmed that the people in the mural with the characteristics complained about are not actually Jewish, but are instead named, non-Jewish people. And, obviously, for some reason, you imply that Muslims were just complaining about bog standard depictions of Muhammed and don't use your previous descriptive words of "offensive" etc. Now, I wonder why you'd do that?... 

 

 

What was the context of the incident, you seem to know more. Any links?

[Bjornebye]

10 minutes ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

He'd probably be viewed as a prophet.

Good for you that, repped. 

 

 

It is quite ironic though that somebody so keen to defend freedom of speech tried to get another poster sacked over a disagreement on here. You also pretty much threatened to get your solicitor involved when over something else on here. Free speech eh? Hypocrite. 

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

What was the context of the incident, you seem to know more. Any links?

What context do we need? It’s a drawing of a fictional character that a very strict sect of Muslims say we can’t see. 
 

If they don’t want to draw him, then fine.  But they can’t tell me not to draw him, particularly if they say they’ll kill me if I do.  This is another of those arguments that is absolutely crazy.  

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

It is quite ironic though that somebody so keen to defend freedom of speech tried to get another poster sacked over a disagreement on here. You also pretty much threatened to get your solicitor involved when over something else on here. Free speech eh? Hypocrite. 

 

Almost like there's a difference between freedom of speech and targeted harassment, isn't it.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

Almost like there's a difference between freedom of speech and targeted harassment, isn't it.

And you just called someone else a parody. Fucking hell. 

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

2 minutes ago, SasaS said:

What was the context of the incident, you seem to know more. Any links?

I don't know what the context was. I wasn't there. I don't jump to conclusions based on my own prejudices. I haven't once claimed to know the context of the incident. 

 

However, I did say that there have been claimed clarifications about the context. These seem to originate from the parents and are contained in the thread below. But, as I stated originally, they're only allegations. 

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/1375128216218836993

[Strontium]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

And you just called someone else a parody. Fucking hell. 

 

I'm clearly forgetting that Chapter 7 of Mill's On Liberty begins with the maxim: "If freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom to tell someone else you hope his mum gets raped".

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

I'm clearly forgetting that Chapter 7 of Mill's On Liberty begins with the maxim: "If freedom of speech means anything, it means the freedom to tell someone else you hope his mum gets raped".

Was that Spy Bee? I thought that was that prick Tooth 

[Strontium]

Just now, Bjornebye said:

Was that Spy Bee?

 

What on earth did you think I got so upset about in the first place?!

 

Anyway, the matter is over now, I don't want to discuss it further.

[SasaS]

4 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

What context do we need? It’s a drawing of a fictional character that a very strict sect of Muslims say we can’t see. 
 

If they don’t want to draw him, then fine.  But they can’t tell me not to draw him, particularly if they say they’ll kill me if I do.  This is another of those arguments that is absolutely crazy.  

Context is always important. Like, if you have the cartoon printed on your t-shirt and then you go to jump up and down in front of a mosque to provoke people is different to using the cartoon you know is controversial to illustrate an important point in an educational situation.

[Bjornebye]

Just now, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

What on earth did you think I got so upset about in the first place?!

 

Anyway, the matter is over now, I don't want to discuss it further.

So it was Spy Bee? 

 

Anyway, yet again my point is that I'd rather my kids teacher didn't put their lives in danger. No matter what the circumstances. 

[Rico1304]

6 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Context is always important. Like, if you have the cartoon printed on your t-shirt and then you go to jump up and down in front of a mosque to provoke people is different to using the cartoon you know is controversial to illustrate an important point in an educational situation.

 

 

No it isn’t.  There are no blasphemy laws in the U.K.   
 

Not only are these fucking idiots getting offended over a drawing, they are offended on other people’s behalf.  Fucking stupid. 

[Rico1304]

Can’t wait for the JVs to start killing people for taking blood transfusions.