Charlie Hebdo Attack

[kalm]

The two shooters in the attack are now reportedly dead.
Also dead is the guy in the Kosher Market.
All hostages are safe.

A lot of stupid people lost their lives in the last couple of days.

[CAA Flagship]

The two shooters in the attack are now reportedly dead.
Also dead is the guy in the Kosher Market.
All hostages are safe.

A lot of stupid people lost their lives in the last couple of days.

What?

[kalm]

What?

Define "A lot".

[YoUDeeMan]

Can we get back the definition of EO shots?

[CAA Flagship]

What?

Define "A lot".

Well, the three today, and the Charlies that were responsible for the decision to continue to antagonize an extremely volatile group of people.

[CAA Flagship]

Can we get back the definition of EO shots?

Other thread.

[YoUDeeMan]

Can we get back the definition of EO shots?

Other thread.

Got it.

My AA got the memos mixed up.

[kalm]

Define "A lot".

Well, the three today, and the Charlies that were responsible for the decision to continue to antagonize an extremely volatile group of people.

They took a risk in the name of free speech and paid for it with they're lives. All anti-muslims should rejoice. They're martyrs.

[CAA Flagship]

Other thread.

Got it.

My AA got the memos mixed up.

Just make sure your AA doesn't screw up the TO order. (Take Out)

[CAA Flagship]

Well, the three today, and the Charlies that were responsible for the decision to continue to antagonize an extremely volatile group of people.

They took a risk in the name of free speech and paid for it with they're lives. All anti-muslims should rejoice. They're martyrs.

Stupid, no?

[kalm]

They took a risk in the name of free speech and paid for it with they're lives. All anti-muslims should rejoice. They're martyrs.

Stupid, no?

Risk takers. Do you think journalists killed in Iraq and Af-Pak are stupid?

[YoUDeeMan]

Define "A lot".

Well, the three today, and the Charlies that were responsible for the decision to continue to antagonize an extremely volatile group of people.

Maybe I'm wrong...and let me know if I am, but Charlie's Not So Angels', "antagonistic" ramblings seem to offend you.

Why?

[YoUDeeMan]

They took a risk in the name of free speech and paid for it with they're lives. All anti-muslims should rejoice. They're martyrs.

Stupid, no?

No.

The world needs risk takers.

The world also need some risk takers taken out when they get too comfortable or too one sided.

[YoUDeeMan]

Stupid, no?

Risk takers. Do you think journalists killed in Iraq and Af-Pak are stupid?

The only thing I think is stupid about them is that they somehow believe they should not be killed simply because they are journalists.

[CAA Flagship]

Well, the three today, and the Charlies that were responsible for the decision to continue to antagonize an extremely volatile group of people.

Maybe I'm wrong...and let me know if I am, but Charlie's Not So Angels', "antagonistic" ramblings seem to offend you.

Why?

I'm not offended. The thing that jumps out at me in this case is the inconsistent separation, or lack thereof, of "freedom of speech" and "hate speech".
If a radio talk show host can get public ridicule, and eventually fired from his job, for a "nappy-headed hos" comment because it is considered "hateful", why would Charlie Hebdo's cartoons not be considered "hateful"?

[CAA Flagship]

Stupid, no?

Risk takers. Do you think journalists killed in Iraq and Af-Pak are stupid?

How much money are they making?

[Grizalltheway]

Risk takers. Do you think journalists killed in Iraq and Af-Pak are stupid?

How much money are they making?

[CAA Flagship]

How much money are they making?

Do you work to live, or live to work? Would you "take the risk" for the same pay you are making now?

[YoUDeeMan]

Maybe I'm wrong...and let me know if I am, but Charlie's Not So Angels', "antagonistic" ramblings seem to offend you.

Why?

I'm not offended. The thing that jumps out at me in this case is the inconsistent separation, or lack thereof, of "freedom of speech" and "hate speech".
If a radio talk show host can get public ridicule, and eventually fired from his job, for a "nappy-headed hos" comment because it is considered "hateful", why would Charlie Hebdo's cartoons not be considered "hateful"?

Oh, I agree with you there, in spades.

As I posted earlier, people love using free speech to attack their targets, but then recoil in horror, and legislation, when someone says something they find offensive.

Laugh at and make fun of the Muslins, Christians, while males...but don't dare laugh at or make fun of a gay person or a black person.

[GannonFan]

I'm not offended. The thing that jumps out at me in this case is the inconsistent separation, or lack thereof, of "freedom of speech" and "hate speech".
If a radio talk show host can get public ridicule, and eventually fired from his job, for a "nappy-headed hos" comment because it is considered "hateful", why would Charlie Hebdo's cartoons not be considered "hateful"?

Oh, I agree with you there, in spades.

As I posted earlier, people love using free speech to attack their targets, but then recoil in horror, and legislation, when someone says something they find offensive.

Laugh at and make fun of the Muslins, Christians, while males...but don't dare laugh at or make fun of a gay person or a black person.

It's ironic, because these guys at that magazine didn't pull any punches - they made fun of everything - religion, homosexuality, women, blacks, etc. They weren't saints and they were probably pricks. The thing is, you should be allowed to be a prick without being killed for it. That doesn't mean that you can't be criticized and shunned for being a prick - that's a freedom their audience has always had.

[Ivytalk]

Oh, I agree with you there, in spades.

As I posted earlier, people love using free speech to attack their targets, but then recoil in horror, and legislation, when someone says something they find offensive.

Laugh at and make fun of the Muslins, Christians, while males...but don't dare laugh at or make fun of a gay person or a black person.

It's ironic, because these guys at that magazine didn't pull any punches - they made fun of everything - religion, homosexuality, women, blacks, etc. They weren't saints and they were probably pricks. The thing is, you should be allowed to be a prick without being killed for it. That doesn't mean that you can't be criticized and shunned for being a prick - that's a freedom their audience has always had.

Good risk-free, centrist riposte there, Ganny. Took real cojones to post that.

My wife and I just took out a subscription to Charlie Hebdo and, yes, we can read French.

[CAA Flagship]

Oh, I agree with you there, in spades.

As I posted earlier, people love using free speech to attack their targets, but then recoil in horror, and legislation, when someone says something they find offensive.

Laugh at and make fun of the Muslins, Christians, while males...but don't dare laugh at or make fun of a gay person or a black person.

It's ironic, because these guys at that magazine didn't pull any punches - they made fun of everything - religion, homosexuality, women, blacks, etc. They weren't saints and they were probably pricks. The thing is, you should be allowed to be a prick without being killed for it. That doesn't mean that you can't be criticized and shunned for being a prick - that's a freedom their audience has always had.

Agree.
This is an interesting analysis. On one hand, you have the stupidity of pushing the proverbial buttons of the volatile.
On the other hand, it brings up the issue of hate speech protected by freedom. In this case, the hate speech was in print form from people that probably side with protestors of other forms of hate speech. It all boils down to whether they are offended or not. Charlie Hebdo had become judge and jury of what is tolerant and what is not.

[kalm]

It's ironic, because these guys at that magazine didn't pull any punches - they made fun of everything - religion, homosexuality, women, blacks, etc. They weren't saints and they were probably pricks. The thing is, you should be allowed to be a prick without being killed for it. That doesn't mean that you can't be criticized and shunned for being a prick - that's a freedom their audience has always had.

Agree.
This is an interesting analysis. On one hand, you have the stupidity of pushing the proverbial buttons of the volatile.
On the other hand, it brings up the issue of hate speech protected by freedom. In this case, the hate speech was in print form from people that probably side with protestors of other forms of hate speech. It all boils down to whether they are offended or not. Charlie Hebdo had become judge and jury of what is tolerant and what is not.

Quit trying to make it political. All speech should be protected. Speech you agree with doesn't need protection. Protection of controversial/hate speech is the most important.

I didn't think Imus should be fired either, but people that get fired from their jobs over controversial speech is not the same as this on so many levels...

[JoltinJoe]

I think "Wanted" overstates the case.

[GannonFan]

It's ironic, because these guys at that magazine didn't pull any punches - they made fun of everything - religion, homosexuality, women, blacks, etc. They weren't saints and they were probably pricks. The thing is, you should be allowed to be a prick without being killed for it. That doesn't mean that you can't be criticized and shunned for being a prick - that's a freedom their audience has always had.

Good risk-free, centrist riposte there, Ganny. Took real cojones to post that.

My wife and I just took out a subscription to Charlie Hebdo and, yes, we can read French.

I didn't realize that every position you take should be risky. Seems an odd political bent to have. I merely stated that these guys could have been printing absolute garbage and filth and they should have all the freedom to do so and I should have all the freedom to say it's garbage and filth (if I felt that way) and choose not to buy it and encourage others not to as well.