Topic: Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression (Read 2773 times)

Not traditionally, anyways this pope is a very interesting fellow worth listening to now and then.

You should edit your post so it does not look like I am the one saying what you are saying...

For the designation of abuse, it requires a recurrence of assaults. Insulting a person doesn't make for an abuse, it's merely an assault. However, repetitively assaulting a person constitutes abuse. Mental distress is not the damage caused by abuse, the damage caused by mental abuse is depression, retardation of social skills, anxiety, depreciation of self-worth, and many more. People can get over mental distress by shifting their concentration, the damage caused by abuse can be permanent...

It may be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant. jihadists kill because they're engaged in a religious war. It's not OK for them to kill because of a picture of their prophet, but it's foolish to ignore the risks associated with painting a target on yourself when dealing with extremists. I'm not blaming the victim, nor have I said they are ever to blame.

People need to accept the reality that risk isn't black and white. "well, she shouldn't have worn that because it was likely to provoke someone to rape her." By choosing to deviate from the standard of society (standing out of the group of normality) she has absolutely increased her risk of being raped, even though that rape is not her fault, she was spotted by a predatory creature. It can be observed all around us in nature, predators will act predatory. My point isn't to place blame it's to assess the risks associated with our actions and see that certain actions increase the risk of adverse reaction.
 
If I choose to walk in a pit of snakes, I should accept the risk that I might be bitten by a snake. It's not my right not to be bitten, and the world doesn't owe it to me that I won't be. Refusing to acknowledge the risks of my actions will increase the probability that I won't experience my desired outcome.

I'm not saying not to express yourself for fear of retaliation either. I'm actually saying the contrary, protecting yourself is fundamental in nature. Even though we may live in civilization, human nature is inescapable, and is equally primal compared with animal nature... Don't walk through a snake pit with nothing but shorts and sandals...

You either support freedom of expression or don't, as far as I'm concerned there is no middle ground, I don't think they should have arrested that 'comedian' either ( note my sarcastic finger quotes ) because if they're going to do that then why don't they go and arrest the Christians that go around ranting about homosexuals all the time or attack scientists just for writing about scientific evidence?

I was wondering whether this new pope everybody liked was too good to be true, even Jon Stewart was making this point about france having a rally about freedom of expression and speech then suddenly deciding it was okay to arrest the guy for making a comment on facebook.

I'm not the kind of person who likes to arrest stupid people, I prefer to give them a megaphone so everyone knows just how stupid they are 

Most Catholics are fairly liberal.

Isn't Peter the first pope? The vatican was built on top of his grave.

 

the bible never says there needs to be a pope the pope is a man made hierarchy.

I agree. It took me a while openly carrying before the awkward feeling subsided. Now I have no inhibition to it...

The same might be said for a person who chooses to protest, or exercise any other right. People are conditioned to merely imagine freedoms rather than exercising them...

In the real, freedom comprises an indeliberate expression of being. In a hyperreality, “freedoms” comprise notions of freedom.

. . .

I have no refutation, your interpretations belong to you, and if you consider my arguments a product of arrogance, that's outside of my control. Never have I considered myself anywhere close to perfect, nor have I dodged the pressure of acknowledging my poor judgments once made, which I openly admit when realized, and reform once refuted with a better supported opinion.

I'm 27 years old and married with 2 children. I'm humble, and I work for myself. I'm highly opinionated, and when I don't have enough information to make a wise move with regard to freedoms, I'm obstinate because I would rather sacrifice a potential net gain while holding ground than risk taking a path towards a net loss. What freedoms we have came at the cost of many lives to gain in the first place and I don't want to risk the toll coming due once again, especially when my children may be the ones to suffer it. I interject my opinion when I have one, and I care nothing for the judgments placed on me by others, because I'm not comparing myself to anybody else. I'm happy with who I am, and my conscience is clear for the views I hold are benevolent. I'm too young to consider myself wise...

There's nothing to be gained once a prejudice has evolved in the mind of a contestant when discussing/debating ideology, or anything else for that matter. To follow up within the context of your quote from Plato, Socrates' Defense, Apology: Then bask infinitely in your wisdom, and may the satisfaction of your advantage over me suffice to supplement all of the beauty and good that you may never know. While I too may not know anything really beautiful and good, neither do I judge others against myself, and for that lack of vice I require no trophies to supplement my happiness or elevate myself among others.

It has been a pleasure, but this seems to be the end of our dialogue.

Baudrillard presents hyperreality as the terminal stage of simulation, where a sign or image has no relation to any reality whatsoever, but is “its own pure simulacrum” (Baudrillard 1994, 6). The real, he says, has become an operational effect of symbolic processes, just as images are technologically generated and coded before we actually perceive them. This means technological mediation has usurped the productive role of the Kantian subject, the locus of an original synthesis of concepts and intuitions, as well as the Marxian worker, the producer of capital though labor, and the Freudian unconscious, the mechanism of repression and desire. “From now on,” says Baudrillard, “signs are exchanged against each other rather than against the real” (Baudrillard 1993, 7), so production now means signs producing other signs. The system of symbolic exchange is therefore no longer real but “hyperreal.” Where the real is “that of which it is possible to provide an equivalent reproduction,” the hyperreal, says Baudrillard, is “that which is always already reproduced” (Baudrillard 1993, 73). The hyperreal is a system of simulation simulating itself.

(Red colorization mine.)

Perhaps I don't understand your meaning, this is what I believe you meant; if I'm mistaken then please enlighten me. By rogue asteroids I thought you meant the inevitable isolated case of extreme havoc as a result of great potential energy within the grasp of an overwhelmingly fallible species where wisdom exists as an extreme minority.

By your next point, I'm extremely obstinate when I consider a motion in any direction inspired by fear, and without a clear path, especially when that motion limits my ability to stand my ground...

Why do I mention this? Because I am going to explain to you why I have such an evil name. When I heard the answer, I said to myself, What can the [extraterrestrial] mean? and what is the interpretation of this riddle? for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great. What can he mean when he says that I am the wisest of men? And yet he is a[n] [extraterrestrial] and cannot lie; that would be against his nature. After a long consideration, I at last thought of a method of trying the question. I reflected that if I could only find a man wiser than myself, then I might go to the [extraterrestrial] with a refutation in my hand. I should say to him, "Here is a man who is wiser than I am; but you said that I was the wisest." Accordingly I went to one who had the reputation of wisdom, and observed to him - his name I need not mention; he was a politician whom I selected for examination - and the result was as follows: When I began to talk with him, I could not help thinking that he was not really wise, although he was thought wise by many, and wiser still by himself; and I went and tried to explain to him that he thought himself wise, but was not really wise; and the consequence was that he hated me, and his enmity was shared by several who were present and heard me. So I left him, saying to myself, as I went away: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is - for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows. I neither know nor think that I know. In this latter particular, then, I seem to have slightly the advantage of him. Then I went to another, who had still higher philosophical pretensions, and my conclusion was exactly the same. I made another enemy of him, and of many others besides him.

An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.

of course it wrong to force any one to do anything. they shouldn't even force a Muslim to wear a veil. it's the individual choice whether they want to or not. (Islam does not say its compulsory to do so). i am sure it was not only about drawing the insult was how it was drawn and the message from it. of course a non-muslim may not consider it to be wrong but that drawing is hurtful to Muslims.

if someone swears at your mother the one who swore has no feelings because it wasn't his mother but the son would feel hurt as its his mother. since the war has begun so many things has been said about the religion but it was debated. there are things in every religion that should not be insulted as they are sensitive.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

I disagree, if your religion mandates that women be veiled in public, it's not OK to use force when another religion doesn't have the same standard. It may be bad for a Muslim to draw Mohammed, but it's not bad for a non-Muslim to draw Mohammed...