Kika Grantham Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 For a few moments it looked like everyone was safe - sad beyond words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valerie Inshan Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm so sorry too... The situation here is still very confused as I am watching the news. Lots of ambulances can be seen, I can hear many sirens from my home and we can only pray that the wounded are not too badly injured. Dammit, what a sad week it is...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexia Moonstone Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 mirbaz wrote: Shame on those who mock others religious figures through these drawings. Shame on those who mock their own religion by using it as an excuse for violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 So very tragic. And very outraging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Faulds Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 The saddest thing is that these are extremists. The mainstream Islamics live in peace with those of the Christian and Jewish faiths, considering both to be people of the book.. Islam recognizes the Torah and the Bible as works of faith in their religion. They see Jesus as a prophet. The extremist that see all other faiths as a threat to them, it feel sorry for them. I also feel sorry for any that can't accept satire. Islam is the only faith that has a problem with depictions of Mohammed. Look what happed to Salmon Rushdie after he wrote The Satanic Verses. Intolerance is wrong. Je suis Charlie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valerie Inshan Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Pam, Bobbi, one tragic side which must be ABSOLUTELY NOT be neglected is the impact on the Muslim community too. I'm terribly worried to see how many mosques have been attacked or tagged. Many people make an almagation between those loonies and what Islam really is. Coran doesnt demand killing. Ever never. In France we have a huge muslim population which is today at least as much concerned and scared about what happened as the christans, jews, protestants, buddhists.... you name it. 99% of them are perfectly integrated in our society and scared to death that there will be a misunderstanding and an unappropriate mix between fondamentalits and regular believers. I'm scared for them as much as I am scared for our democratic founding principles. Oh, a nationwide union is undergoing for now, but for how long?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tari Landar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 valerie Inshan wrote: Oh, a nationwide union is undergoing for now, but for how long?... Sadly, for about as long as it goes on in any of these situations. Personally, I find all of these terrorist attacks as beyond tragic, but I can't help to wonder where the outrage is for the attacks that happen daily all around the world. Most attacks will go unnoticed, until it happens at home, or close to home. At which point, folks closest to the tragedies will expect a complete outrage the world over, and be unaccepting of any differing viewpoints on the matter. I find that as tragic, as the loss of life that happens all so often in these instances. My, our(my family's) thoughts are always with those on the receiving end of such monsterosities and attacks, as well as those who will feel the backlash because of the actions of others. It still worries me to see so many people calling for a worldwide union against this particular monsterosity and attack, yet very little coverage of the thousands of other attacks taking place each and every day, the world over. Having lost family members, loved ones and friends to terrorist attacks does not make me any more, or any less sympathetic towards those that go through them, regardless of how widespread the news coverage and general coverage through social media. It has, however, opened my eyes to the mere fact that, for most people, until it happens at home, it's out of sight and out of mind. But, if one dares to suggest such a thing, the replye is often "of course we care in other situations, how could you possibly suggest we don't". The answer to that simple question is.....no one sees that you care, so no one can really believe that you do, until you make it known. I am all for standing up against terrorists and those who choose to attack others, in whatever way one believes most effective. I am not all for deeming one tragedy, one attack, more newsworthy than every other. Sadly, that is the one tragedy of all of these attacks, that never changes, even as we deal with the aftermath of losing loved ones, family members, friends, and fellow citizens...I still weep, heavily, for those who won't be in your local news, won't be in your prayers or thoughts, won't even be on your mind...all because...."it wasn't at home", and "I didn't know", and...whatever other excuses people come up with to make themselves feel better. (All you's being generally speaking, of course, not a personal attack on anyone, any group, any nation) If anything one would think, by now, this world would mourn all loss, at all times, not merely when it hits close to home. That is one thing I do hope for, oddly, that minds will be opened when these things happen to the reality that they exist all over the world, whether or not people want to confront that evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Takeda Posted January 10, 2015 Author Share Posted January 10, 2015 Hello Everybody interesting debate this. Thanks for all the thoughtful comments. Of course there is a limit to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech ends where other peoples rights are harmed. Threatening, difamation or copy right infringments are just some examples. However, there is no justification for those criminal actions. As somebody else said before: in a civilized society you go your lawyer and sue the assumed ofender. Media (and I include bloggers in that categorie) are an important part of our society. Free media is one of the pillars of our democratic society hence an attack like this is an attack on our democratic values. Thats what I meant by: freedom of speech is not negotiable! Nobody who writes about things going on should need to do this under fear of death. I never thought about writing about the topic "religion in Second Life" . Now I will, just because I can and because je suis charlie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 carolinestravels wrote: Just to make clear where we stand: Freedom of Speech is not negotiable! Try telling that to the moderators here ... PS I am confused. Is the EFF in favour of free speech, or does it want to censor harassment - and if so, WHO determines exactly what constitutes harassment in comparison with an expression of a contrary opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Innula Zenovka wrote: RonR wrote: What everyone shouting about free speech never mentions is that with the RIGHT of free speech comes the CONSEQUENCES of your words. This was the direct consequence of what 3 extremists thought was an attack on their beliefs. Do I think the illustrators deserved what happened? No. Do I think they might have anticipated this kind of reaction in this day and age, and in light of the fact that the paper was firebombed in the past? Of course they should have, and taken proper measures to insure the staff's safety in light of the inflamatory pieces they publish. As it has been reported here in the UK, the terrorists gained entry to the building by ambushing one of the magazine's employees as she arrived at work with her young child and threatening to murder her child if she didn't let them into the building using her security code. Could you maybe outline some of the "proper measures" you say the magazine should have taken but neglected to take to protect its staff? How about advising employees not to bring their kids to work with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Freya Mokusei wrote: Individual freedom can only be increased by the unapologetic and flagrant use of parody/satire. For that is how it works. I will pass on your support in this matter to Pep, wherever he may now be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 mirbaz wrote: Shame on those who mock others religious figures through these drawings. Have you thought of applying for a job with LL? Or prehaps you could sign up as security for the SL OBR event. Or perhaps THIS is what you think is appropriate punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josie McGann Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Je Suis Charlie Speaking for myself, I believe it is better for me to have a thicker skin than for me to selfishly demand that others check their freedom of expression to avoid "offending" me. Freedom of Expression is perhaps the most important freedom that thinking beings can excercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Faulds Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Well, I see the resident troll, full of snarkiness, has arrived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valerie Inshan Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: How about advising employees not to bring their kids to work with them? Oooh, Mr. Smartass, kid or not, enlighten our ignorant souls about what you would have done with a kalachnikof pointed at your remarkable brains? Enter the code or be killed? Or maybe you are made of the stuff heroes are? :smileymad: It is sufficient to imagine with what guilt this young woman will have to live for the rest of the life, even though SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CHOICE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 valerie Inshan wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: How about advising employees not to bring their kids to work with them? Oooh, Mr. Smartass, kid or not, enlighten our ignorant souls about what you would have done with a kalachnikof pointed at your remarkable brains? Enter the code or be killed? Or maybe you are made of the stuff heroes are? :smileymad: It is sufficient to imagine with what guilt this young woman will have to live for the rest of the life, even though SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CHOICE. Ignoring the needlessness, if not crass stupidity of taking a kid to work in a place of recognised potential danger, if alone I would have pointed out to them that killing me would not get the door opened. The probability of being killed would not be particularly impacted by collaborating or not in the massacre, and my decision would not have been affected by the blindly emotional protective attitude of the female of the species towards their young (she DID have a choice) which was perhaps exaggerated by the realisation that her stupidity had put her offspring into mortal danger. Guilty? Yes. Stupidity is always punished. Also, if I was the security consultant for a high-risk organisation such as the publishing house in question, I would have installed multiple entry codes (as banks and other financially concerned businesses use as standard) including a silent alarm number, which I would have insisted that staff knew and could use rather than their normal code when being coerced into providing access by criminals, terrorists or other unauthorised persons, to give warning to those inside and the police. At point of entry, the mother and child would be hostages and victims already, and a logical rather than emotional response would have offered some hope of protection for others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlazarusLlong Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Bobbie Faulds wrote: Well, I see the resident troll, full of snarkiness, has arrived. I am answering questions, relevantly. They might not be the responses which the hyperemotionally insecure might enjoy, but they represent valid opinions. Would you like to censor me because of that? Or perhaps assassinate me for disagreeing with you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: RonR wrote: What everyone shouting about free speech never mentions is that with the RIGHT of free speech comes the CONSEQUENCES of your words. This was the direct consequence of what 3 extremists thought was an attack on their beliefs. Do I think the illustrators deserved what happened? No. Do I think they might have anticipated this kind of reaction in this day and age, and in light of the fact that the paper was firebombed in the past? Of course they should have, and taken proper measures to insure the staff's safety in light of the inflamatory pieces they publish. As it has been reported here in the UK, the terrorists gained entry to the building by ambushing one of the magazine's employees as she arrived at work with her young child and threatening to murder her child if she didn't let them into the building using her security code. Could you maybe outline some of the "proper measures" you say the magazine should have taken but neglected to take to protect its staff? How about advising employees not to bring their kids to work with them? We don't know the details, though. I agree that it would have been a sound general precaution for the magazine to take, but it seems the employee had just picked up her child from a child -care facility. It's not clear to me if it was her usual practice to take her child to work with her, or if she was not working that day but nevertheless needed to drop something off at the office, or pick something up, decided to do that on her way home from picking up the child, and didn't want to leave the young child unattended in the car. Or it could be anything in between. Don't bring your kids to work is one thing. Don't ever try to enter the building while accompanied by your kids is something different, and could possibly have seemed excessive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Faulds Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Exactly....20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Chances are she was not going in to work...Regardless of threats, who would have ever thought that a quick stop would have been a problem. One of the survivors stated a lot of people had just come back from holiday and they were having a meeting. Growing up, my mother would often run by her work for one reason or another with me in tow and never thought twice about it....A terrorist coming up behind you is not on your list of things you worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 mirbaz wrote: Shame on those who mock others religious figures through these drawings. Anything and everything is open to mocking. But, in particular is mythological nonsense that wants to drag us back to the dark ages! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Freedom of Speech is not an absolute. It is in no one's interests to allow libels, slanders or people to shout "fire" in crowded cinemas. Making that point is not a defence of terrorists Anyone thinking that is extremely wrong headed. There's no law against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. That's idea arose from a misquoted legal decision. As to "libels and slanders", that applies to real people, not mythology. So, yes, one can mock religion and character's created in those mythological stories. You're arguing that people shouldn't mock *beliefs and ideas. I reject that. Bad ideas (beliefs) should be mocked, and exposed for what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Aethelwine wrote: Religious "satire" is only indefensible... Nope. It's always acceptable. Just as satirizing any beliefs or idea is. People are under NO obligation to pretend that someone else's made up "belief" is real. (Although, in a polite society mocking other people for having nonsense belief's shouldn't be the norm, if the beliefs promote general ignorance of science and progress, than I think it is an imperative that satire, and rejection, be not only protected, but promoted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 wLlazarusLlong wrote: Ignoring the needlessness, if not crass stupidity of taking a kid to work in a place of recognised potential danger, waah!!! everywhere is a recognised potential danger Child Protection Freakout Mandate 123-nun: - pls to not take your kids to work bc at the door you might meet some terrorist who will kill the children if you dont open the door - pls to not take your kids to the mall bc at the door you might meet some terrorist who will kill the children if you dont open the door and let them go in first - pls to not take your kids to school bc at the door you might meet some terrorist who will kill the children first before killing all the others - pls to not take your kids to the supermarket bc at the door you might meet some terrorist who will kill the children bc you bought the last bottle of koolaid that the terrorist wanted - pls to not take your kids to the Weirdos convention bc at the door you might meet some terrorist who will kill the children bc you wearing a tinfoil hat better than their one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 valerie Inshan wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: How about advising employees not to bring their kids to work with them? It is sufficient to imagine with what guilt this young woman will have to live for the rest of the life, even though SHE DID NOT HAVE THE CHOICE. She did have a choice, and she made hers. She chose the off chance that they wouldn't kill her child, if she opened the doors. Edited for typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celestiall Nightfire Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 LlazarusLlong wrote: valerie Inshan wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: Also, if I was the security consultant for a high-risk organisation such as the publishing house in question, I would have installed multiple entry codes (as banks and other financially concerned businesses use as standard) including a silent alarm number, which I would have insisted that staff knew and could use rather than their normal code when being coerced into providing access by criminals, terrorists or other unauthorised persons, to give warning to those inside and the police. At point of entry, the mother and child would be hostages and victims already, and a logical rather than emotional response would have offered some hope of protection for others. I was thinking the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now