Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Swampy

French magazine office firebombed...

Recommended Posts

You can however accept that on occasions a victim should put their hands up and admit "ok, that was a bit of a stupid thing to do?". Maybe not necessarily not this case, but in general, right?

No, I prefer to blame perpetrators of crimes, not victims.

Provided the victim haven't themselves committed a crime against the perpetrator, I would attach no blame to them whatsoever.

So, for example, if I punch you in the face, and then you beat me to a pulp, that will be my fault.

If however I walk past you wearing an Arbroath top on derby day and you beat me to a pulp, that will be your fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I prefer to blame perpetrators of crimes, not victims.

Provided the victim haven't themselves committed a crime against the perpetrator, I would attach no blame to them whatsoever.

So, for example, if I punch you in the face, and then you beat me to a pulp, that will be my fault.

If however I walk past you wearing an Arbroath top on derby day and you beat me to a pulp, that will be your fault.

And so if you overly slagged my mum off for whatever reason, I got offended and drunkenly decided to kick you in the ribs, what about then?

Possibly a bad idea to pick an argument with a drunk guy in a bad mood after a derby day defeat??? Nobody would blame you for getting into that situation? Nobody at all? (I'd still be a bellend and at fault for doing, but still...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And so if you overly slagged my mum off for whatever reason, I got offended and drunkenly decided to kick you in the ribs, what about then?

Possibly a bad idea to pick an argument with a drunk guy in a bad mood after a derby day defeat??? Nobody would blame you for getting into that situation? Nobody at all? (I'd still be a bellend and at fault for doing, but still...)

You're struggling for a relevant metaphor here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just delighted my Arbroath-Brechin scenario has held up.

For all my knowledge of Scottish geography, they could be 100 miles apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I applaud the magazine if they're willing to take the risk to stand up for their right to free speech.

I'm sure French workers in the Middle East will appreciate the editor's principled campaign for free publicity and extra sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure French workers in the Middle East will appreciate the editor's principled campaign for free publicity and extra sales.

Still doesn't mean he shouldn't do it. We should be laughing at these cretins, not watching what we do or say to avoid incurring their wrath. Fanatics are idiots and not worth our fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're struggling for a relevant metaphor here.

And how come? You can offend somebody without breakingly any laws can't you? Incite them enough to the point that most neds on the street would stick the heid into you, yet in that case the 'victim' is 0% responsible for what happens? Utter shite.

Both criminals and targets need to start taking more responsibility in their lives.

Edited by Hedgecutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just delighted my Arbroath-Brechin scenario has held up.

For all my knowledge of Scottish geography, they could be 100 miles apart.

Glasgow Uni must have played them in the early rounds of the cup ;)

Anyway, who are The Sun, Mail etc blaming for this, the bloody Muslims or the bloody French?

You certainly see and hear much more anti-French rhetoric in this country than you do anti-Islam.

Can we all say "bloody foreigners" :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how come? You can offend somebody without breakingly any laws can't you? Incite them enough to the point that most neds on the street would stick the heid into you, yet in that case the 'victim' is 0% responsible for what happens? Utter shite.

Both criminals and targets need to start taking more responsibility in their lives.

Jings. Let's translate what you've written there:

You can offend somebody without breakingly any laws can't you?

They can then react to you by breaking the law,

Yet in that case the 'victim' shares responsibility for them choosing to break the law.

Utter, utter nonsense.

The person commiting the crime loses their temper and the moral high ground, immediately, regardless of "offense" caused. It is cretinous apologism to suggest that people who satirise something as utterly ludicrous as religion should be held partially laible for the crimes commited against them. Should they expect some retributuion? Possibly. Are they to blame for it? Categorically no.

I'll admit to be correctly called to account for this on another thread relating to the two Christian fucknuggets pretending that they were Jewish fucknuggets who decided to make a film insulting Islamic fucknuggets, and ended up getting perfectly innocent people killed in other countries. Their behaviour and beliefs are loathsome and dangerous, but what they did was make a film. What this guy did was make a magazine. What Kate Middleton did was get her norks out in a place of privacy. None of them can possibly be held accountable or responsible for the actions of criminals. Not in any way, shape or form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit to be correctly called to account for this on another thread relating to the two Christian fucknuggets pretending that they were Jewish fucknuggets who decided to make a film insulting Islamic fucknuggets, and ended up getting perfectly innocent people killed in other countries. Their behaviour and beliefs are loathsome and dangerous, but what they did was make a film. What this guy did was make a magazine. What Kate Middleton did was get her norks out in a place of privacy. None of them can possibly be held accountable or responsible for the actions of criminals. Not in any way, shape or form.

One of the Christian fucknuggets, Steve Klein, admitted that the reaction to their film was exactly what they were hoping to provoke. That is being an agent provocateur, that is being complicit in violence. Of course it doesn't excuse the people physically carrying out the violence in any way, they are totally responsible for their absurd and psychotic actions. But to claim the fucknuggets are innocent because all they did was make a film or draw a cartoon is naive in the extreme. What if someone starts drawing cartoons of Jews drinking the blood of Christian babies, and some idiots start a pogrom? That's happened before, and I wouldn't call those cartoonists or writers innocent. Of course people should be held soley responsible for their actions, but also for the consequences of their actions, especially when they are foreseen and deliberate.

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the Christian fucknuggets, Steve Klein, admitted that the reaction to their film was exactly what they were hoping to provoke. That is being an agent provocateur, that is being complicit in violence. Of course it doesn't excuse the people physically carrying out the violence in any way, they are totally responsible for their absurd and psychotic actions. But to claim the fucknuggets are innocent because all they did was make a film or draw a cartoon is naive in the extreme. What if someone starts drawing cartoons of Jews drinking the blood of Christian babies, and some idiots start a pogrom? That's happened before, and I wouldn't call those cartoonists or writers innocent. Of course people should be held soley responsible for their actions, but also for the consequences of their actions, especially when they are foreseen and deliberate.

I don't disagree with that - buit it's their own actions they should be accountable for- their own bigotry, hatred, whatever - not "provoking" anyone else. They aren't to blame for the ignorance, nihilism and general lack of self control of the people they antagonise, anymore than the victims of the Islamist murders were to blame for the actions of the filmmakers.

Edited by Pink Freud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jings. Let's translate what you've written there:

You can offend somebody without breakingly any laws can't you?

They can then react to you by breaking the law,

Yet in that case the 'victim' shares responsibility for them choosing to break the law.

Utter, utter nonsense.

Not the responsibility for them choosing to break the law, for choosing to stupidly and needlessly put themselves in that high-risk situation. The decision to raise the fist is solely down to the offender.

(damn edits - I'll get by without noticing a typo one day, I assure you sad.gif)

I can foresee me and a friend crossing a road without looking both ways tomorrow. I'll get hit by a car going at 60mph, he'll get hit by another going at 65mph and I'll be the stupid one for not looking whilst he's the blameless victim of an appalling crime.

Edited by Hedgecutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can foresee me and a friend crossing a road without looking both ways tomorrow. I'll get hit by a car going at 60mph, he'll get hit by another going at 65mph and I'll be the stupid one for not looking whilst he's the blameless victim of an appalling crime.

*sigh*

No, you and the driver of the car who hit you be the victims of an accident, he'd be the victim of someone speeding. Who would be tried for reckless/dangerous driving, not willfully mowing your buddy down with a car.

Come on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can foresee me and a friend crossing a road without looking both ways tomorrow. I'll get hit by a car going at 60mph, he'll get hit by another going at 65mph and I'll be the stupid one for not looking whilst he's the blameless victim of an appalling crime.

Ooft. That is up there with your 'Kate Middleton = Kate McCann' thesis from yesterday.

You really need learn how to construct a relevant metaphor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be the most insecure religion on the planet.

Edited by ayrmad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be the most insecure religion ever.

The Sikhs spent several centuries cutting a bloody swathe through their neighbours. The Christians meanwhile reacted to a 'staunch' 11th Century Muslim governorship in Jerusalem by organising the first of several giant continent-wide crusades.

So.. could still be worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sikhs spent several centuries cutting a bloody swathe through their neighbours. The Christians meanwhile reacted to a 'staunch' 11th Century Muslim governorship in Jerusalem by organising the first of several giant continent-wide crusades.

So.. could still be worse.

That's why I altered it, too slow for the cobra obviously.

And we don't want to understand the Sikhs and their neighbours, they have far more hatred for each other than anything we have in our great divide.

Edited by ayrmad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...