11 dead in French satirical magazine shooting

[11B4V]

Or to put it even differently - you can't have it both ways.

As I said before when I said people are not dogs - you can be culpable for provoking a deadly response generally when you are provoking a dangerous animal - usually not when you are provoking another person who takes responsibility for his or her actions (there is, of course, a spur of a moment/crime of passion type of thing but for that the provocation and the response must be instantaneous).

So either you can argue that these men were simply madmen who had nothing to do with the true Islam - in which case, there is absolutely no culpability on the side of Charlie Hebdo's staff - because you never know what can provoke a madman to murder you. For one madman, it could be a caricature of Muhammad, for another it could be you singing a specific tune. And you can't really predict that.

OR you can argue that one should know that publishing caricatures of Muhammad is more likely to get you killed than other stuff - in which case you have to conclude that a certain not statistically insignificant portion of Muslims behave like rabid dogs who can kill you if you insult them - and you should plan your life around it.

You can't have it both ways.

and neither can you Mr. Rule of Decency and/or Mr. Accepted Rule.

I meant it as a rule of decency, not law.

But it is a more or less accepted rule in our society that one does not point that out

by your own statements CH should not have published those cartoons. To what, do you apply your rules? Which BTW, they (CH) do have the right to publish them however stupid/inflammatory their cartoons are.

[garbon]

The rape metaphor is broader - it is not just about what a woman wears, but where she goes, whether she is alone, with whom she meets etc. We reject all of these because it constitutes a victim blaming and we generally believe that a woman should not live her life around a threat of rape - rather than we, as a society, should protect her from rape.

I don't know. The Cammy P line of thinking suggests that we should be curious as to why a young woman would got to a frat house to drink and then move up into a frat guy's bedroom - but not think that the guy would interpret that as a desire, on her part, to have sexual relations with him.  The line of thought goes onto say that of course, he should be punished fully if she wasn't consenting to sex but that said woman did have a role to play (much in the same way that you don't leave your keys on the hood of your car) / perhaps what happened in this situation is a woman who had sex that she regrets.

[The Brain]

I think it's extremely unlikely that any of the cartoonists regret being murdered.

[Martinus]

As if France has not suffered enough

Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.

[The Brain]

Even Mexico sent a señor official.

[11B4V]

Even Mexico sent a señor official.

You be in rare form sir.

[11B4V]

As if France has not suffered enough

Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.

Lurch is a nice guy.

[Martinus]

He should do a Larry David and come pretending he thought the rally was on Tuesday.

[crazy canuck]

The rape metaphor is broader - it is not just about what a woman wears, but where she goes, whether she is alone, with whom she meets etc. We reject all of these because it constitutes a victim blaming and we generally believe that a woman should not live her life around a threat of rape - rather than we, as a society, should protect her from rape.

I find the analogy with the cartoonists quite apt in this - I think we reject a society where one should be afraid what one says (no matter how offensive) because one can get murdered. Such a model of a society is an anathema to our beliefs just as it is an anathema to argue that we live in a society where it is a woman's responsibility to avoid being raped.

well that is where you go badly wrong.  We do go into depth to determine in the case of an alleged rape as to whether the act was consensual or not.  We don't just convict someone because there is an allegation that the act was non consensual.

If you reject a society where one should be afraid that what one says might get them murdered then you are rejecting reality.  Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did.  You seem to be ignoring my posts where I say whether you admire their decision to publish knowing it created that risk or not, it is silly to wish away the fact that the risk was real.

[The Brain]

  Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did. 

Case closed.

[crazy canuck]

  Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did. 

Case closed.

Exactly.  If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered.  Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out.  If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.

[The Brain]

  Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did. 

Case closed.

Exactly.  If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered.  Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out.  If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.

I see clearly that they were murdered because they made harmless cartoons and not because insane Muslims are extremely and unacceptably criminally violent.

[The Brain]

AND they dressed as sluts.

[CountDeMoney]

As if France has not suffered enough

Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to France after the White House was criticised for not sending a senior official to the Paris unity rally.

He is the Secretary of State, and speaks fluent French.  Why would France be suffering, cum guzzler?

[11B4V]

  Because as we know they were murdered because of what they did. 

Case closed.

Exactly.  If they hadn't published those cartoons they would not have been murdered.  Even someone with an irradiated brain can figure that one out.  If you ignore that fact then all the demonstrations celebrating their right to publish what they did in the face of the danger they could be killed becomes meaningless.

I see clearly that they were murdered because they made harmless cartoons and not because insane Muslims are extremely and unacceptably criminally violent.