16 Jan 15
Originally posted by bbarrI agree, who said I may not agree with that you said, but will fight to the
I love the fact that although we disagree on quite a lot of the "big topics", I'm completely confident that if anybody were to try to shut me up, you'd be on my side. This is something very American and very important; also, personally, moving. We have the right to belittle! But, you know, maybe we should only rarely exercise that right...
death for your right to say it?
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by KellyJayEvelyn Beatrice Hall
I agree, who said I may not agree with that you said, but will fight to the
death for your right to say it?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Born
1868
Died
after 1938
Pen name
Stephen G. Tallentyre
Occupation
Writer
Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868 – after 1938),[1] who wrote under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre, was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire entitled The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.
In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by bbarrI found Americans in large part to be silent about the curtailment of freedom of speech in its economic interests zone of South America for decades and other places where it had cooperating tyrannies in place like Indonesia 1965-1998. Personally, I'd say a "very American" thing I have observed over the years is the sometimes wide gap between its rhetoric and its policy when it comes to the human rights and freedom of speech of non-Americans when it has tried to export and impose "very American" stuff. Do we agree on this "big topic"? 🙂
This is something very American and very important; also, personally, moving.
Originally posted by KellyJayBut do you really believe it, KellyJay?
In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs
If my life was under threat because of me distributing some of those cartoons here in Indonesia and you sacrificing your life might save mine and allow the cartoons to be distributed, would you lay down your life for me and for the right to show people those cartoons?
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatWhy isn't the degree to which they have been insulting (already) not enough?
The stronger the reactions to these cartoons get, the more cartoons need to be published. And the more insulting they need to get.
Hasn't the principle been asserted and adhered to? Hasn't the principle now been reaffirmed by the magazine not breaking its stride in terms of publishing?
What exactly is achieved by upping the degree of insult?
16 Jan 15
Most of what has been published isn’t insulting by the standards of civilized people who don’t go around killing people for drawing a cartoon. If the cartoons do become insulting – if even I would think, wow, that’s harsh – it will quite possibly “anger” even those that until now have only been “displeased”. The ultimate goal is to make sure that even the harshest of cartoons will only make the entire Muslim community shrug and say “Whatever”. The only way out is through.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatYou are under a misapprehension. Such things as these recent cartoons are deeply, deeply insulting to many hundreds of millions of people who wouldn't dream of going around killing people for drawing them.
Most of what has been published isn’t insulting by the standards of civilized people who don’t go around killing people for drawing a cartoon.
Originally posted by Great King RatIn conservative cultures, and societies new to democracy, the "only way" to further the basic human right of freedom of speech is to use it to be as harshly insulting as possible even while its application to the basics in life in so may places is still fledgling and fragile? Is it really the "only way"?
The ultimate goal is to make sure that even the harshest of cartoons will only make the entire Muslim community shrug and say “Whatever”. The only way out is through.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFThe point I was trying to communicate is that even though it may be “deeply, deeply insulting” to them right now, it can - and will - go much, much further than this still. Their skins need to be thickened because of this.
You are under a misapprehension. Such things as these recent cartoons are deeply, deeply insulting to many hundreds of millions of people who wouldn't dream of going around killing people for drawing them.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatThe skins of people who are fighting for or depending on human rights around the world need to be thickened by French cartoonists? Is that what you mean? It's a genuine question. People who find the insults insulting must actually not be insulted by them, that's your aim? Or when you say "Their skins need to be thickened", you are referring only to the people who are willing to murder and people and die while murdering people?
The point I was trying to communicate is that even though it may be “deeply, deeply insulting” to them right now, it can - and will - go much, much further than this still. Their skins need to be thickened because of this.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFThe right for the Charlie Hebdos of this world to publish cartoons that may offend should be indisputable. The only way to do this is to keep publishing – offending, if you will.
In conservative cultures, and societies new to democracy, the "only way" to further the basic human right of freedom of speech is to use it to be as harshly insulting as possible even while its application to the basics in life in so may places is still fledgling and fragile? Is it really the "only way"?
Think of it as arachnophobia. The only way to truly overcome ones irrational fear of spiders is to confront that fear head on. Avoiding spiders will not make the fear go away, and sooner or later you will face a spider.
If furthering the development of a culture – for instance by fighting poverty and corruption – means religion will become of less importance and people will become less easily offended, I have no problem with that. But cartoons will still need to be published in order to ascertain this has actually happened.
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by FMFThe skins should be thickened of those that are currently murdering, but also of those that are currently “deeply offended”. One can find something insulting, while simultaneously shrugging and saying “whatever”. The world can be an offending place, get used to it.
The skins of people who are fighting for or depending on human rights around the world need to be thickened by French cartoonists? Is that what you mean? It's a genuine question. People who find the insults insulting must actually not be insulted by them, that's your aim? Or when you say "Their skins need to be thickened", you are referring only to the people who are willing to murder and people and die while murdering people?
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
16 Jan 15
Originally posted by Great King RatI agree. Muslims must be made to understand that their particular beliefs are not sacrosanct in any way. If they want to believe that a pedophilic warlord is the wisest and most important human that ever lived, they're entitled to that belief, but I shouldn't have to screen my wording just to not upset someone. If they believe that you'll go to hell for drawing pictures, that's fine. I don't believe as they do, so I'll draw pictures of whatever the hell pleases me. Well, I would, if I could draw without being ridiculed. 😕
The point I was trying to communicate is that even though it may be “deeply, deeply insulting” to them right now, it can - and will - go much, much further than this still. Their skins need to be thickened because of this.