Gun Attack on French Magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 12.

@Hexagon_777: Dude I think you're missing the point. Muslims pray 5 times a day and the fact that nobody was killed is lucky, but the attackers went in there with intent to harm/injure. No doubt the violence and hate against French Muslims will escalate in the coming days, but it needs to be curtailed before it gets out of hand (2-3 officers dead; one Muslim).

Nah, I get it.

You are trolling.

Good one.

And?

This episode of south park happens to be one of my favorite episodes. Because it featured a very cool Muhammad that has power over fire and together with the help of other religious figures they saved the day in the most hilarious way.

Also when this episode aired no one got mad which speaks volumes and further proves my points.

EDIT: Oh wait I just realized it is the tom criuse episode. Yeah it was a good episode but not as good as superbestfriends.

I ain't no troll , and i don't expect an experienced user like u accuse me of that ...All i'm saying is for your own safety and for a peaceful world ..

Utter nonsense.

Comedy and satire are one of humanity's greatest achievements, The problem and violence begins when people kinda like you do here, take themselves way too serious and suddenly think they are entitled to special treatment.

Don't worry, that will happen. I'd have zero problems with a cartoon depicting jesus nude and calling his mother a whore. I would think that would be hilarious as hell. I'd let my kids watch it too. I think religious people of all faiths are hypocrites. They need a figure head to give them a moral compass. They can also clear their conscience of an immoral act by asking forgiveness from their imaginary friend. They also want to impose their dogma on others. buhh....buhhh....buhhh daddy daddy! he made fun of me....

grow a sense of humor.

You are right, lets show all terrorists that terror works and that if you do not like something all you need to do is kill a few people and we will all cover under the tables .

It´s insane to watch this thread and how some actually are in favor of giving the win to the terrorists.

lol wat? This post makes no sense. What does comedy and satire being one of humanity's greatest achievements have to do with insults masqueraded as comedy and satire?

Seriously guys as a great admirer of satirical works I have to say I'm quite disgusted at those who think comedy and libel are the same thing.

This is a different episode. Through out all of it they are insulting all religions while never showing Muhammad because "that would be offensive"

Also they did receive death threats for the episode you're thinking of and is no longer aired on TV or on their site.

And why do you think it's ok to show Buddha doing coke but wrong to insult Muhammad? Double standard much?

It was kinda of a metaphor....think more. (btw it's from House M.D tv series )

I take that back , my apologies. Actually what i meant was being disrespectful ....

Yeah it is. Comedy and Satire .....but not dis-respectfulness.

Ahhh now i know you are just a troll.

Because not only does that not at all prove your point, it also shows that you have no clue as to what a religion you claim to believe in says and show your incredible double standards.

Seriously ?

I don't have any fuss over any religious shit whatsoever , but c'mon .....sense of humor can be grown in a rational way ....you'd let your kids watching a show where an elder gets such an offensive treatment for the sake of them having a sense of humor.......it's just pathetic !

They got death threats for the superbestfriends episode too? I didn't know and wikipedia doesn't mention anything either. Well that's unfortunate but yeah there are always fvckfaces who are there to threaten you. But at least people didn't hold protests.

The 201th episode was a disaster imo. During the entire episode Mohammad was "censored" and by the end of that episode again Kyle and Jesus's speech is censored. (which was a decent speech btw)

the whole "you better respect me or i'm going to hurt you" idea is childish. you want to be respected? stop fucking acting like an asshole. you earn repect, you do not demand it

And when is something disrespectful? is it making fun of the catholic church? pope? a north korean leader?

Or is muslims a special kind of group we need to have special rules for?

See i was never in favour of terrorists, i just didn't wanted innocents getting killed for small reasons as cartoons or mocking of a religious figure mohammad via cartoons. But i understand and respect your point very much also in not giving into terrorists inspite they threat/ kill innocents ( Tottally unacceptable ). It has to end, maybe at cost of some civilians lives. But for the greater good :)

Your double standards are getting to be quite tiresome.

Cartoons, satire and anything else about Muhammed a fictional character is and never will be insults, its comedy and satire nothing else. Are you offended by it stop watching it, stop going into areas where you will see it.

Muslims dont have any special right to demand special treatment because some extremist think its ok to pick up weapons and prove to the world just how stupid they and their religion is.

woah slow down. You accused me of too many things that I don't know to which one I should reply first. First it does prove my points. See my other post. Second just because I don't share the same views with some idiot scholar does not mean I don't know my religion and third where was the double standard?

It would have been ok to show Muhammad doing coke with buddah at that scene imo. So I ask again. Where is the double standard?

Well, the case here is if we stop using freedom of speech/expression/artistic or otherwise about one group because we might be afraid, what is to stop them from demanding more. Not to mention that it will show us as the worst kind of hypocrites. Because if we give in to one group , what about all the rest who is equally as "offended" but just doesnt show it by picking up guns.

Terrorist should never win and i would much rather like the chief-editor of Charlie said die standing than on my knees.

Earlier you said "When was the last time south park depicted Jesus nude called her mother a whore and called him a bastard?" So where is it you draw the line? What you said doesn't seem that much worse then how they portray other religious figures. It's only when Muhammad is shown like that it becomes a problem.

Why is it wrong to insult Muhammad? What makes him so special that we can't joke and insult him?

Ok lets settle this. Everyone should run their cartoons, essays, videos ect. through a religious council and whatever they decide is appropriate and not offensive to them then we can run with that.

I will start by taking down the Charlie Hebdo image on my signature.

I apologize.

he's a fictional character only to you. To the Muslims however he is a father figure so... And I say it again. Insulting almost anyone is wrong. Not just Muhammad (pbuh). It's a depraved act and if you guys really want to be that morally backward then so be it. Suit yourselves.

Why should anyone care if you like Muhammad? Hitler had a lot of followers and still does, so should we not be allowed to insult Hitler because we may offend neo-nazis?

Someone could easily argue that following Muhammad makes you depraved and morally backwards, and he would be just as correct as you are.

Again please do try to understand that having freedom of speech is not and never will be morally backward. After all i don't think i have to show you a picture of the middle-east compared to the west do i?

Also i dont get why you seem to miss the point that noone is forcing you or anyone else to watch any thing, its a funny thing we have called freedom. Are you offended by satirical cartoons in France, well then stop looking up news stories about them or go into a debate forum where they are being discussed.

You or anyone else have absolute no right to not be offended since everyone have a freedom of choice.

When someone says "I'm offended" I say "I'm still waiting to hear what your point is"

Ehmm, no it doesn´t prove your point. Not unless your point is "look at me and my doublestandards"

If you are wondering now what your double standards is, well you keep trying to claim that 1 picture is ok while another is not, its ok for Muhammad to be seen snorting coke and being a superhero, while its not ok to show him kissing a man or how the danish cartoons did. That is what we in the west call double standards because you want to have cake and eat it too.

It doesn't work like that, you cannot demand censorship on one picture just because you don't like it while saying "hey its ok to show this because i like it"

+1

Very true words. They might demand / or try to curb something more in future, more religious groups will get offended or try to have their own way also by wrongful means.

I don't understand what your deal is here. It's not just when Muhammad (pbuh) is insulted. I quit watching family guy forever after I watched their jesus mary and joseph episode. I found it extremely offensive and inappropriate. Why do you think it's just about Muhammad (pbuh)? It's quite easy to understand when we're going to get extremely offended. God's prophets are like fathers to us. If you call my father a warlord or a drug user (in a satirical way) I will be able to tolerate it. But then you picture him nude, then you picture him kissing another man, then you picture him in a sexual position then you imply that he had raped our mothers.

It's common sense.

Skip...

Whats wrong with showing him kiss man? Are you honestly saying that doing coke is better than kissing a man? For someone who seems so passionate about not offending anyone you sure seem quite homophobic.

Like I said why should anyone care about what offends or doesn't offend you? You seem to be drawing the line on what's acceptable based on your own views rather than any logical argument. That's just plain narcissistic.

You seem to be missing the point here. He implied that it's ok to make fun of him because he is fictional. I simply pointed out that to Muslims he isn't fictional.

Too bad there were no cameras back in the dark ages though am I right? You only got lucky that's all.

That's what I always do but I can't seem to understand how it's related to what we're discussing here...

I guess reading or English isnt your strong point

Sometimes i really do hate those multiquotes.....

No point was missed. Despite Muslims praying 5 times a day, nobody was harmed or injured, regardless of what the intent was. That is very different to what those two savage men managed to accomplish.

How can someone miss the point as often as you do?

During dark ages in europe we had allowed religion to dictate our lives, luckily we got past that point. But great comparison , a time where most still thought the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe and that some entity called "God" had created it all in 6 days. We are now clearly not that stupid and know better. So what is your excuse for the middle-east being in the dark age now?

And what my point is? hmmm, that again you have no right not to be offended because you have every right not to go look it up. Its like sticking your finger in a flame, you know it will burn but if you still do it, well it explains itself.

it was thanks to the slobber (ewww)

And for someone who asks us not to feel offended because others don't feel offended you seem to get offended quite easily (by the mere mention of a same-sex kiss)

And how can you use logical argument when trying to draw that line? It's always going to be subjective and no it has nothing to do with double standards. (If anything to solve the double standards issue give up on insulting people altogether instead of knowing no limits) Some things are extremely offensive while some other things are only mildly offensive. For instance it's true that depicting Muhammad (pbuh) in movies magazines etc. can be offensive to most Muslims in general but I'm sure that most of those who consider it to be an insult view it as only as a mild offense and so they don't retaliate. On the other hand we have things that can be extremely offensive. Avoid those and you're golden.

Holy sh!t, this thread was created only a day ago and it already has 200 posts. In a thread of this type though, not sure if that's good or bad.

an elder? hmmm....didn't know him. don't give a pooh about it.

" You should show respect to get respect " ! and in this fucking case , you should do nothing ....or you're gonna end up with a tragedy like this ..

I've had enough .... For the sake of world's peace it's better than u keep your distance from muslim extremists..., that's all.

I'm not taking sides here .....all i'm saying is that for your own damn safety do not mess with such extremists ...i know every shit about freedom , i know what you're saying makes sense ...i know that every religion every belief should be treated equally .....but this shit is just a whole different story ...

By elder i don't mean a prophet or sth , i mean someone who's older than'em ....after all respecting an elder is a good thing for kids, don't u think?

@Toph_Girl250: Honestly this needs to be locked. It's just damage control and hate with few posts offering any intelligent insight.

No, it doesn't need to be locked.

Here is Bill Maher:

And here Cenk of The Young Turks (sue me) goes on a rant:

Sure.

Among the most prominent aspects of this issue are Islamic extremists, as they call themselves, literally attacking people for offending them. Contrast that with American values in which freedom of speech and freedom of expression are recognized as unalienable rights. People generally do not enjoy being offended due to art. However, in America, the people have the freedom to express themselves and, since it is a capitalist society, we can question the value of irreverent behavior with regard to the economic and social impact of making such a thing in a balanced way. The allowing of caricatures of Muhammed or other forms of ireverence increases intellectual potential not because of religion being a form of inferior culture, but because it allows people to experience the expression of someone and continue to be pro-something if they choose while utilizing the growing ways of expressing oneself in response as a form of peaceful protest or a myriad of other choices for action without violence.

Some might say that peaceful protest does not amount to much, but it can actually be more effective than violence in places where dominating or domineering cultures are considered as needing to change. Also, the act of peaceful protest shows that a willingness to talk is present which, as at least the past one hundred years has shown, may cause feelings of empathy by both sides which is a sign of positive change. Look at the history of Mohandas Gandhi and later Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. for an understanding of the power of non-violent protest and how the utilization of that power made a difference in their respective movements for independence and liberty.

The so-called "Islamic" extremists (I emphasize the supposition of their title as Muslim with regard to several users on GameSpot denouncing them as not followers of "true" Islam in actuality) have an ideology of no compromise of culture. Compound that with the fact that parts of their culture would be simply unacceptable, here, both legally and socially, and there is a clear sign that change needs to occur in order to accomodate both parties. One might say that the defeat of Islamic extremists is inevitable, but then we need to ask what metric he or she is basing that claim on and if it has any regard to the North Korean hack of Sony, and whether or not American theaters recinding Seth Rogen and James Franco's film called The Interviewwas inevitable by that metric. We could also question more broadly and ask if African American men and women needed to be attacked in order for positive change to occur in America and use that as a comparison to the current events occurring in the world, today.

In addition to Islamic extremists, North Korea is another factor in the ongoing effort to decrease the openness that the legal rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression allow for the sake of sustaining leadership. Islamic extremists support Islam-central government and whether or not one agrees with such a thing is not central to the issue I am mentioning as much as the methods (they are methods) in which people choose to respond to differences of culture. A person needs the freedom to say something without fear of legal ramifications, granted the existing laws of their country are sufficiently accomodating of both the speaker and the listener, for instance. The Islamic extremists and the North Korean government are two collective examples of followers of certain idealogies seeking to usurp others.

With voluntary self-restraints on horsepower in Japan, automobile engineers worked within the 280 HP and 190 km/h top speed limit for safety and improved other aspects of their vehicles. They made excellent cars such as the Mazda RX-7 and Honda NSX. In the same way, for the sake of liberty, people need the opportunity for free speech and free expression granted the rights of other people are not infringed on to allow culture to grow healthily. Islamic extremists and the North Korean government have chosen to respond to the products of these rights with threats and actual acts of violence, so I say that it is two different groups seeking to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of expression, rights that are held as self-evident in the U.S., at least

@quebec946: I remind you of the Code of Conduct:

Please don't make comments that lack content. Phrases such as "this", "lol", and "I came here to say this" are not witty, original, or funny, and do not add anything to the discussion. While we allow off-topic discussion, be mindful that this is first and foremost a video game forum. Members who take advantage of off-topic to repeatedly post inane, nonsensical or meaningless threads are at risk of moderation.

Well-written.

Thanks.