Guns Guns Guns, Now Paris!

[Starter]

I don't mean to hijack this thread (but perhaps an interesting discussion for it's own thread), but the intent of a state-funded welfare system is not so much to benefit the individual but society as a whole.

Agree this could easily be its own thread. So this is my last comment about it in this thread. When someone is not interested in pulling enough of their own weight in life then I have no use for them. I really don't care if the cost to me is only two cents. Let them starve. To mix metaphors, they're dead wood in the gene pool. On the other hand, if someone is willing to make an effort then I'm inclined to assist them in that effort.

[Robinho]

I wouldn't call myself religious mostly because I don't like organized religions. Like in almost any kind of organization, in a church or whatever form of organized religious group some will try to impose their views on others in one way or another. I don't like that because it's always the most dubious characters that try to rise on top of the others. Like it's been said, "the trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt". I have my faith though.

I don't really think atheism is the answer and I certainly don't appreciate it much the way some preach their atheism from their really high horses. In the end, like it or not, it may not be a religion, but atheism is definitely a faith and convinced atheists are nothing but just another type of fundamentalists because with all their condescending pretended love for reason their entire belief system is so so strongly based on something that isn't and can't be proven, just a very personal and subjective opinion, pretty much like any other faith. But for some unknown reason they are reasonable and the others are unreasonable.

I'm a Romanian. Over here atheism was all but the official religion for half a century and boy what an enlighten society we were. The communists really took the idea and ran with it. They treated us as nothing but just another species of animals and after 50 years some of us are more animals than human beings.

So Robinho, please tell us more about this beautiful atheism and completely disregard any personal variations it may take. In the real world we really live the consenquences of Lenin, Stalin and Ceausescu, some of the finest NoGod apostles.

I think what you had their was enforced replacement of religion and gods, with communism, which did not want to exist in a society where people took guidance from another higher power when the higher power was supposed to be the state. That is purely a power play in exactly the same form as the organised religions. Atheism, as I previously stated, shouldn't even need to exist as a concept, if not for the existence of man made religion. I guess I would identify more as a humanist atheist. I don't believe in any gods, and see no reason to require any religion or state to pledge myself to. I think we are informed enough with far enough developed morally structured society's to be able to take responsibility for ourselves and stop pretending there is something more than we are living right now and stop wasting, what in all likelihood is our one and only, life on gathering together praying (begging) to a being that is supposed to already know everything and clearly doesn't care.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Be careful about generalising.

Two second or third generation Algerians killed 17 people last week, one of them was a second generation Algerian or Tunisian police officer shot in the head at point blank range while trying to defend the values of the Republic and the French public. He was a religious Muslim too BTW. As was another Muslim from Mali who worked at the kosher supermarket and risked his life helping Jewish shoppers hide in the basement of the store. Did they integrate or no?

It sounded like a generalization, but it wasn't meant to be. It's clear that some integrated and some didn't.

Based on the above I can suggest the following. 1) One could integrate if s/he was willing to. 2) One could combine the loyalty to France and its ways (including stupid cartoons and Michel Houellebecq) with his/her ethnic and cultural background. 3) If one was unwilling to do so, s/he probably had no business living in France.

[Spafranco]

Charlie Chaplin wasn't Jewish either. Didn't stop him from making The Great Dictator, one of the funniest comedies of its era and unlike other comedians he had the guts to do it while Hitler was alive in a film industry that was terrified of offending the Nazis just in case they won in Europe.

Because someone does something egregious to the beliefs of most of society does not make it correct.

[Starter]

Because someone does something egregious to the beliefs of most of society does not make it correct.

A major assumption not backed up by facts.

[Malbec]

Because someone does something egregious to the beliefs of most of society does not make it correct.

It wasn't offensive to anyone bar Nazis. The Jewish lobby in Hollywood didn't back the film purely out of political/business concerns in case Hitler defeated the UK/France in Europe and Hollywood would end up being locked out of the lucrative European market. They didn't take offense and your point is rather impotent.

[Spafranco]

A major assumption not backed up by facts.

A major assumption not based on facts!

[Spafranco]

It wasn't offensive to anyone bar Nazis. The Jewish lobby in Hollywood didn't back the film purely out of political/business concerns in case Hitler defeated the UK/France in Europe and Hollywood would end up being locked out of the lucrative European market. They didn't take offense and your point is rather impotent.

Hard to believe that so many of you are so inclined to appear to side with people like Nazi's.

[Malbec]

Hard to believe that so many of you are so inclined to appear to side with people like Nazi's.

Pointing out a great piece of comedy that mocked Nazis means I am inclined to side with Nazis? Interesting logic there.

[airshifter]

It sounded like a generalization, but it wasn't meant to be. It's clear that some integrated and some didn't.

Based on the above I can suggest the following. 1) One could integrate if s/he was willing to. 2) One could combine the loyalty to France and its ways (including stupid cartoons and Michel Houellebecq) with his/her ethnic and cultural background. 3) If one was unwilling to do so, s/he probably had no business living in France.

I don't think it's at all uncommon for many people to live in countries where they are not 100% (or even close usually) satisfied with the way things are in that country. If we take the attitude that those not happy should go elsewhere, where are they to go?




And personally I'm still shocked at the reaction of much of the world that claims to be so understanding and accepting of other cultures. I don't see the initial murders as a terrorist act, or even remotely one. They had very specific targets and IMO the people involved other than those at Charlie Hebdo were nothing other than what these maniacs considered acceptable collateral damage. And yet after a building burned, and now a murder spree took place, the magazine responds by printing more of an issue that will further infuriate those attacking them. Bravo.... a great way to roll the dice and pull even more nutters into the mix!

I'm all for freedom of speech and the press, personal expression, and human rights. But I also accept that with my freedom of speech comes a responsibility that what I say may have negative consequences.


Sorry, but I am NOT Charlie.