Sky News refuse to show front page of Charlie Hebdo

[Jonna Lee 384]

WHAT THE F***?

 

THEY WANT PEOPLE TO RESPECT THEIR RELIGION AND THEIR GOD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE SOMEONE MAKING FUN OF YOUR GOD EVERYDAY AND GET ALONG WITH IT? MAKING RACIST STATEMENTS ABOUT YOUR RACE ON NEWSPAPER?

 

Of course not. But TERRORISM IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT'S WRONG. AND IT IS ALSO WRONG TRYING TO DISTURB THOSE PEOPLE. BECAUSE YOU KNOW IF YOU DISTURB THOSE PEOPLE THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO GET BETTER. 

 

WHY THAT STUPID NEWSPAPER DOES NOT SPREAD THE MESSAGE OF LOVE INSTEAD?

 

BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DISTURB, THEY WANT WAR, THEY WANT HATE. AND IF YOU DO THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTRACT THAT TO YOURSELF. AND LOOK WHAT  HAPPENED TO THEM.

 

AND THE NEWS ARE NOT SHOWING THE FRONT PAGE AS A SIGN OF RESPECT, AS YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR OTHER RACES TOO. IF YOU WANT TO BE RESPECTED, YOU HAVE TO RESPECT THE OTHERS TOO.

bless you

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

"beyond evidence", that's kind of what i said or at least inferred when i said "without evidence". because if something has to go beyond evidence, i would say that is because there is no evidence, or the evidence that is there is insufficient to validate their hopes or preconceptions. and when there is no evidence then there is no reason to believe or have faith in it. obviously those who do have faith would disagree with that.

 

the number of people believing in something doesn't really affect whether i think it's worthy of ridicule. actually, the more ridiculous something is, and the more people believe in it gives it even more reason to be ridiculed, not less. the more people involved in anything the more serious it becomes. if it's a bad thing, i think it's natural to want to lessen that. 

it's a bad and ridiculous thing IN YOUR OPINION. otherwise you seem to want to impose your opinion on others so fervently. sound familiar? just like the very religions you despise trying to prove to the other that they are wrong, you are doing the same.

 

and like I was saying earlier, those who have faith would disagree with that because they have a different idea of what faith means than you do. and like I said earlier you can't comprehend the idea of faith and understand how something can go beyond faith and still be true to so many people.

[garnite 8]

it's a bad and ridiculous thing IN YOUR OPINION. otherwise you seem to want to impose your opinion on others so fervently. sound familiar? just like the very religions you despise trying to prove to the other that they are wrong, you are doing the same.

 

and like I was saying earlier, those who have faith would disagree with that because they have a different idea of what faith means than you do. and like I said earlier you can't comprehend the idea of faith and understand how something can go beyond faith and still be true to so many people.

well what else would it be other than my opinion? obviously i'm not speaking your opinion because i'm the one speaking not you hehe :) it's an opinion that i think is reasonably based. i don't want to "impose it so fervently", i just won't be told i'm not allowed to ridicule the ridiculous. it's in the name. there's nothing imposing about that. 

 

yes, and i think they're wrong. i think you just can't comprehend that i do completely comprehend it and still think it's wrong. maybe you're the one with the comprehension issue. i think "true to so many people" is a totally meaningless statement. true is true. 

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

well what else would it be other than my opinion? obviously i'm not speaking your opinion because i'm the one speaking not you hehe :) it's an opinion that i think is reasonably based. i don't want to "impose it so fervently", i just won't be told i'm not allowed to ridicule the ridiculous. it's in the name. there's nothing imposing about that. 

 

yes, and i think they're wrong. i think you just can't comprehend that i do completely comprehend it and still think it's wrong. maybe you're the one with the comprehension issue. i think "true to so many people" is a totally meaningless statement. true is true. 

well if you truly comprehended the idea of faith, then you wouldn't keep bringing up "evidence" so consistently.

You're no different than any other extremist or preacher of a religion who simply tries to preach their point of view and purposely ridicule or prove to the others how their points of view on the concept of faith are wrong. Yours simply is how it simply cannot exist and therefore you are wrong to believe it does. true is not true because everyone has their own ideas, their own perceptions about something. maybe in math, science, and history true may be true. but when it comes to more larger, philosophical issues people have their own conceptions on what's right and wrong, true and false. You don't have faith, we get it, but don't try and ridicule others for having it. That's all I have to say. Please don't respond. :)

[garnite 8]

well if you truly comprehended the idea of faith, then you wouldn't keep bringing up "evidence" so consistently.

You're no different than any other extremist or preacher of a religion who simply tries to preach their point of view and purposely ridicule or prove to the others how their points of view on the concept of faith are wrong. Yours simply is how it simply cannot exist and therefore you are wrong to believe it does. true is not true because everyone has their own ideas, their own perceptions about something. maybe in math, science, and history true may be true. but when it comes to more larger, philosophical issues people have their own conceptions on what's right and wrong, true and false. You don't have faith, we get it, but don't try and ridicule others for having it. That's all I have to say. Please don't respond. :)

that sentence sort of sums it up though. that's exactly my point. you have an issue with evidence even being brought up. that's why i have to bring evidence up. it exposes a lot about the kind of mentality you have to adopt when you're faithful. and that's a problem. making evidence irrelevant is the heart of the problem.

 

any other extremist? you sure about that? nah, you haven't thought this through. you wouldn't say it about anything but religion because you feel like religion is more special than other topics and that when i casually dis it you would think no matter what i'm saying it's going to sound extreme or like an imposition. this is really common. if we were discussing politics or even science you wouldn't have this reaction. 

 

i don't deny subjectivity, but you deny reality. some things are on a spectrum of right and wrong, and some things really are simply wrong. you imply total subjectivity. i think that's crazy because even when it's demonstrated you can't address it, like square shaped circles.  well, except when you concede true is true in some cases. yeah, and remember what we were originally talking about? flat earth. or maybe that wasn't you, so sorry if i'm mistaken. but that's a case of true being true or not. it can go much further than that, but it depends on how much those with "faith" are willing to admit it. i'm always going to ridicule ridiculous ideas, like i guarantee you also do in other situations but religious ones. and that ridicule may take the form of laughter or a smirk at someone who claims they're pregnant with hitler's baby. but you do it too. i just want equality 4 dat yet i am the great shaytan :(

[Bear 7,515]

If this was any other time, I would agree with their decision not to show it (or even the newspaper) because it has the potential to upset people with very little other benefit to gain in return. Yes everyone has the freedom of speech and expression, but I am of the sentiment just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

However, at this present time I think that was the wrong decision. It gives the message that terrorism works, and is a tolerable response because someone offended you. Extremists need to understand that their faith is their own, and not anybody elses. If someone chooses to go against what you believe in, you ultimately have to accept that. 

 

and on a further, more personal note, I don't understand what is so offensive about depicting Muhammad. Why it offensive to give him an image? (yes this is a question, please answer me I want to know). I was also reading that there is no instruction given in the Quran that specifically condemns it (correct me if I'm wrong), and it is just a tradition that has been accepted over the years. 

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

If this was any other time, I would agree with their decision not to show it (or even the newspaper) because it has the potential to upset people with very little other benefit to gain in return. Yes everyone has the freedom of speech and expression, but I am of the sentiment just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

However, at this present time I think that was the wrong decision. It gives the message that terrorism works, and is a tolerable response because someone offended you. Extremists need to understand that their faith is their own, and not anybody elses. If someone chooses to go against what you believe in, you ultimately have to accept that. 

 

and on a further, more personal note, I don't understand what is so offensive about depicting Muhammad. Why it offensive to give him an image? (yes this is a question, please answer me I want to know). I was also reading that there is no instruction given in the Quran that specifically condemns it (correct me if I'm wrong), and it is just a tradition that has been accepted over the years. 

this post pretty much sums up my feelings at the moment.

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

that sentence sort of sums it up though. that's exactly my point. you have an issue with evidence even being brought up. that's why i have to bring evidence up. it exposes a lot about the kind of mentality you have to adopt when you're faithful. and that's a problem. making evidence irrelevant is the heart of the problem.

 

any other extremist? you sure about that? nah, you haven't thought this through. you wouldn't say it about anything but religion because you feel like religion is more special than other topics and that when i casually dis it you would think no matter what i'm saying it's going to sound extreme or like an imposition. this is really common. if we were discussing politics or even science you wouldn't have this reaction. 

 

i don't deny subjectivity, but you deny reality. some things are on a spectrum of right and wrong, and some things really are simply wrong. you imply total subjectivity. i think that's crazy because even when it's demonstrated you can't address it, like square shaped circles.  well, except when you concede true is true in some cases. yeah, and remember what we were originally talking about? flat earth. or maybe that wasn't you, so sorry if i'm mistaken. but that's a case of true being true or not. it can go much further than that, but it depends on how much those with "faith" are willing to admit it. i'm always going to ridicule ridiculous ideas, like i guarantee you also do in other situations but religious ones. and that ridicule may take the form of laughter or a smirk at someone who claims they're pregnant with hitler's baby. but you do it too. i just want equality 4 dat yet i am the great shaytan :(

because religion is something that is personal. not science or politics, those are realities. Religion is more personal and like I keep saying requires faith, something which science and politics don't. I am under the firm belief that faith and evidence are in two different realms and trying to bring one into the other simply won't work. You seem to think that faith is a nonexistent concept, otherwise you would have some sort of faith or spirituality, and you try to bring others to your point of view by ridiculing them (as you said earlier, you support the ridicule of faiths in order to push your own point of view across) or continually asking them where's the evidence when the evidence doesn't matter because faith comes from a different place. You can't understand that because you don't feel faith, but numerous others do and that's why it's wrong to belittle people for holding this simple idea of faith and spirituality. btw, the flat earth thing wasn't me.

[garnite 8]

because religion is something that is personal. not science or politics, those are realities. Religion is more personal and like I keep saying requires faith, something which science and politics don't. I am under the firm belief that faith and evidence are in two different realms and trying to bring one into the other simply won't work. You seem to think that faith is a nonexistent concept, otherwise you would have some sort of faith or spirituality, and you try to bring others to your point of view by ridiculing them (as you said earlier, you support the ridicule of faiths in order to push your own point of view across) or continually asking them where's the evidence when the evidence doesn't matter because faith comes from a different place. You can't understand that because you don't feel faith, but numerous others do and that's why it's wrong to belittle people for holding this simple idea of faith and spirituality. btw, the flat earth thing wasn't me.

everything's personal to a degree. everyone has their pet biases, it doesn't have to just be religion. that's why i don't think religion is special or stands out among those things. but as society we make it that it does. and i would say that they can't be combined because faith doesn't do anything but make people feel good about things they don't know, or claim they know things which they do not. i understand that you disagree with this.

 

no, not to push my own point of view across, but to encourage those with silly beliefs (whichever belief, any belief that you personally find wrong or silly, maybe on global warming or something) to reconsider it all the time and to make up their own minds. if they come to the same conclusion, fair enough. that's where i stop and where extremists don't. i just like talking about stuff endlessly (or in your view, i just like the sound of my own voice ^_^) 

 

i think evidence does matter and i've never seen any merits in the arguments against dropping evidence... i'm not sure where that has helped society in any situation... i am open to be proven wrong though contrary to what you might assume. not my fault if people don't try (or succeed).