Aren't you standing logic on it's head here?...

Perhaps you should rethink your sig...
Standing against intolerance... is not a passive act...
Standing against intolerance, requires that you be intolerant of those that demand intolerance...

Standing, requires that you take a stance...

ray
who is entitled to express a different view
we all are


cept yelling FIRE in a theater

or having  a" *HIT HAPPENS" bumper sticker in Florida

(sh*t happens)  

crap happens

I guess its how you present your point

I understand your position. There is what society and law say and there is .. well being stupid.

Lets remove this to a situation of rape. Is there ANYTHING that a woman can do that would justify rape. NO, of course not. Is there anything a woman can do that realistically puts herself in a position were it is more likely to happen?

Is there anything a person can say or print that would justify their murder? NO, of course not. Is there anything a persona can say and or print that could put them a position that would increase their likelihood of it occurring... yes there is.

The USA culture and I "think" french culture are the same with regards to freedom of speech.  We hold it as a fundamental right. Islamic culture is NOT so inclined. So it becomes a simple clash of culture. The problem is the solution is not simple, or has not been resolvable for many years/decades/centuries. In the past and the indeed currently, it is the norm to blame the person who committed that crime, and not recognize nor deal with the culture clash. Or if the culture clash is acknowledged... to "forgive" the criminal as their culture "made them do it".

As a USA conservative, my views are not popular nor PC. It was a criminal act, and the criminals should be caught and punished in accordance with law. If this can be deemed a "terrorist" act then ( in the USA and I think France) additional punishments can be brought to bear.  Anything less, if any way the victims can be painted as deserving of thier fate, then freedom of speech and the culture that supports and defends it is abolished and the culture that would suppress such become the new culture.

Yeah slow day at work.......    

The difference Ray is that going into a black neighborhood and inciting violence is not the same as a newspaper's editorial position, in this case on the growing acceptance of extremism and violence in Islam.

Islamic extremist have been very effective and silencing opposition. If you want to see a ridiculous example, look up the picture in the New York daily news' coverage about the Paris attack. They have a photo of a man standing with a copy of the offending newspaper with one of the cartoons on the cover. They actually blurred out half of the photo that showed an image of Mohammed. The other half of the photo showed a Jewish man with the stereo-typical hooked nose. Did they blur the Jewish caricature of a man with a hook nose out of the photo so as not to offend the Jewish race? No, of course not. They left that fully visible. Now, why did they do that?  The answer is of course they know Jewish shooters are not going to invade their newspaper crying out for revenge and shooting down people in cold blood. That's what I mean by Muslim extremist having succeeded in terrorizing and intimidating most newspapers.

There is absolutely no place in this discussion for even considering for one half a second there was any amount of justification behind these murders.

In this country, comedians, use political figures, positions, actions, etc, etc, etc.  Nothing is spared. Religion, Companies, Products, and so on.
And I am sure, they all have received, ’threat’, letters as to their opinions. Yet, Freedom, to say what you want, protects them.

However, at what point, and what, ‘leaders’,
will allow that, Freedom,  to erode. ????  

Take Ferguson.
The people that live their, have the, ‘right’, to express their opinion.
But to Loot, Riot, Set fires,
are the same as being on a airplane, and in mid flight,
saying:  “Hi”, to a fellow named Jack.

The, shooters, should be caught, strung, and quartered.

Yet, their will be some that say:
“Terrible event, and to stop future events like that,
we need a law, you can not wear a short skirt”

Also, where did they get guns?
In a country that so prides itself, from ‘removing’ firearms,
from the honest citizens?

And when will the people, who tout the; “Greater Good”,
get a law passed, that abridges your freedom,
and say: “Well you know, you can’t say those things,
because someone may shoot you”.

Do you know, who represents you?
Local/State/Federal?
Have you reminded them,
YOU hire them, and YOU, pay their wages?

Or do nothing, and accept the day, when, 'for the greater good',
your freedom, to give your opinion, is removed.
Because what happened their over their in France.
Because it is clear, that giving your opinion on something,
could cause harm to someone else.

raydawg wrote on 01/07/15 at 17:33:59:


Interesting inquiry, I will add my .02 from the direction in which this thread was initiated.  I think Raydawg posed a rationality question of who is entitled to be outraged and why.

Who decides would primarily be the populace of the offended demographic  (or perhaps how much the populace as a whole is willing to tolerate), media (propaganda ministry), political factions (political parties and or political action campaigns), non-governmental organizations (to many to address), other special interest groups, the financing for various causes & agendas (whether that be direct donations or indirect funding such as in the form network funding from advertisers), and of course religious influences.   All play a role how topics and issues are viewed and to what degree they may be deemed acceptable.

Best regards,

Geez I hate it when Sew and I are on the same side  of an issue.....  I have to go back and double check my thought process.

Sew is absolutely correct.