User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 11

  1. #1
    Senior Member danseen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    784

    Default je suis charlie.....

    I am charlie too.....but then this will be unpopular, but if muslims can complain about those pics.......why not just accept its the price of living in a free society?

    Provided there are is no speech threatening the life or property of others, then should muslims live in our societies if they cant hack the basic rules of it?
    Good result (vs. Soton)...still have to go #Arsene

    Tengo los conocimientos estardiar....no hay un motivo para estar al tanto de la reunión que sucedió hace mucho tiempo ....

  2. #2
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Even tho this charlie thing might be legal, it doesent mean that it wouldnt be wrong. And its not really the same as drawing jesus like that, because muslims more often are more devoted to their religion than christians. Because of this, there will be more people reacting more personally insulted and with stronger emotions. Its really about the strength of the complex. So it would be more similar if you would go to someone with severe traumas and start talking shit about that..
    Ofc its not right to kill people over this stuff either and im sure that majority of muslims agree to that.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  3. #3
    Senior Member danseen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    784

    Default

    i disagree. I think anybody/anything should be subject to criticism, including religion. Traumas are different imho, but then i think they're being too sensitive.
    Good result (vs. Soton)...still have to go #Arsene

    Tengo los conocimientos estardiar....no hay un motivo para estar al tanto de la reunión que sucedió hace mucho tiempo ....

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Even tho this charlie thing might be legal, it doesent mean that it wouldnt be wrong. And its not really the same as drawing jesus like that, because muslims more often are more devoted to their religion than christians. Because of this, there will be more people reacting more personally insulted and with stronger emotions. Its really about the strength of the complex. So it would be more similar if you would go to someone with severe traumas and start talking shit about that..
    Ofc its not right to kill people over this stuff either and im sure that majority of muslims agree to that.
    Its got nothing to do with devotion, one of the central tenets of Islam, from right at the time of its origins is to do with a fanatical hatred of idols and idolatry and they think of any depictions of the prophet as idolatrous or presumably God and even Jesus, since those are figures in their religion too.

    Maybe there would be some fanatical factions within Christianity which would resemble them in this respect, I know of some which do not permit music, television or books other than scriptures to their followers here in Northern Ireland but they are not really representative of Christianity and they are not likely to engage in physical force in order to get the wider society or law of the land to conform to their religious tenets.

    In part this could be because of the role that individual and private conscience played in the reformation and even the adjustments thereafter which incorporated non-conformist congregations and eventually the remaining roman catholic congregations into a social order alongside the new established churches usually national entities such as the church of scotland, church of england etc. Each step involved toleration of views other than those prevailing as the public legal order provided they did not threaten to substitute those views for the public order. Ideas about liberty were therefore born out of the squabbles of tyrants as, I think, Jefferson said, and later became a case of liberty is always liberty for those that disagrees, as Rosa Luxemburg said.

    The thing about censorship, whether its official state prohibition or public opinion, is that most people are fine about it so long as its something that they dont care about. If Charlie Hebdo did a series which satirised homosexual "marriage" or that sort of politics I bet a lot of their former liberal resistors of Islam's efforts at censorship would change their mind about it.

    I think the whole thing could teach everyone a lot, freedoms people take for granted arent guaranteed anymore, the authorities can do some things to try and ensure public safety and freedom of speech, print etc. but they cant do everything and it looks like there are going to be costs, everyone has to decide for themselves if its worth it or not because they might have to pay the price.
    Likes LonestarCowgirl liked this post

  5. #5
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its got nothing to do with devotion, one of the central tenets of Islam, from right at the time of its origins is to do with a fanatical hatred of idols and idolatry and they think of any depictions of the prophet as idolatrous or presumably God and even Jesus, since those are figures in their religion too.

    Maybe there would be some fanatical factions within Christianity which would resemble them in this respect, I know of some which do not permit music, television or books other than scriptures to their followers here in Northern Ireland but they are not really representative of Christianity and they are not likely to engage in physical force in order to get the wider society or law of the land to conform to their religious tenets.

    In part this could be because of the role that individual and private conscience played in the reformation and even the adjustments thereafter which incorporated non-conformist congregations and eventually the remaining roman catholic congregations into a social order alongside the new established churches usually national entities such as the church of scotland, church of england etc. Each step involved toleration of views other than those prevailing as the public legal order provided they did not threaten to substitute those views for the public order. Ideas about liberty were therefore born out of the squabbles of tyrants as, I think, Jefferson said, and later became a case of liberty is always liberty for those that disagrees, as Rosa Luxemburg said.

    The thing about censorship, whether its official state prohibition or public opinion, is that most people are fine about it so long as its something that they dont care about. If Charlie Hebdo did a series which satirised homosexual "marriage" or that sort of politics I bet a lot of their former liberal resistors of Islam's efforts at censorship would change their mind about it.

    I think the whole thing could teach everyone a lot, freedoms people take for granted arent guaranteed anymore, the authorities can do some things to try and ensure public safety and freedom of speech, print etc. but they cant do everything and it looks like there are going to be costs, everyone has to decide for themselves if its worth it or not because they might have to pay the price.
    Devotion to a cause takes away from the individual judgment. With enough devotion to a wrong cause, people can do some pretty nasty stuff. Im not saying that devotion to islam is wrong cause, but the extremist cults of islam are. But even with strong devotion to non extremist(or should i say normal) islam, the type of shaming that charlie did is felt stronger, than to someone not so devoted to islam(or other religions). Devotion to islam makes it all felt as more personal insult, than just an insult agains some character on a book(or actually writer of the book).

    Also im not sure if you know that quran says something about that people against(or enemies of) islam should be beheaded. This thing is a major thing than divides the extremist groups from normal muslims. Extremist groups like al-qaeda interpret this so that all non muslims(and those muslims who arent following the book correctly) should be killed. While a normal muslim sees this as a passage that gives justification for holy war IF muslims are actually being attacked by non muslims(or if there is some muslims vs christians war, but that sort of thing is kinda in the past, or at least its not being shown to public). Now if you think of this charlie thing, many non extremist muslims might see this as a direct attack against their prophet and therefore against islam.
    Do you think that anyone without sufficient devotion to islam(extremist or not) would actually execute this sort of thing like killing someone who publicly attacked islam?

    Quran doesent say anything about making pictures of mohammed, its just idol worshipping that is prohibited. However there are some later teachings(sort of supplementary material) that prohibit images of the prophet.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  6. #6
    Senior Member Snoopy22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 so/sp
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    359

    Default

    Many Christians also see pictures of Christ as a form of idolatry. If you go around kicking dogs, don’t be surprised if one bites you.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Adam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    DEUS
    Posts
    162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy22 View Post
    Many Christians also see pictures of Christ as a form of idolatry. If you go around kicking dogs, don’t be surprised if one bites you.
    No matter its breed, the dog should be put down for its transgression.
    ‘Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.’

    ‘And we will have made great strides in equality,
    when few have too much and fewer too little.’.

  8. #8
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    No matter its breed, the dog should be put down for its transgression.
    I think the one that kicked the dog should have the penalty, not the dog..
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    Devotion to a cause takes away from the individual judgment. With enough devotion to a wrong cause, people can do some pretty nasty stuff. Im not saying that devotion to islam is wrong cause, but the extremist cults of islam are. But even with strong devotion to non extremist(or should i say normal) islam, the type of shaming that charlie did is felt stronger, than to someone not so devoted to islam(or other religions). Devotion to islam makes it all felt as more personal insult, than just an insult agains some character on a book(or actually writer of the book).

    Also im not sure if you know that quran says something about that people against(or enemies of) islam should be beheaded. This thing is a major thing than divides the extremist groups from normal muslims. Extremist groups like al-qaeda interpret this so that all non muslims(and those muslims who arent following the book correctly) should be killed. While a normal muslim sees this as a passage that gives justification for holy war IF muslims are actually being attacked by non muslims(or if there is some muslims vs christians war, but that sort of thing is kinda in the past, or at least its not being shown to public). Now if you think of this charlie thing, many non extremist muslims might see this as a direct attack against their prophet and therefore against islam.
    Do you think that anyone without sufficient devotion to islam(extremist or not) would actually execute this sort of thing like killing someone who publicly attacked islam?

    Quran doesent say anything about making pictures of mohammed, its just idol worshipping that is prohibited. However there are some later teachings(sort of supplementary material) that prohibit images of the prophet.
    Well, I saw it largely as arising from the prohibitions on idolatry, that's a massive thing from the origin of Islam, pretty much one of the corner stones but it was an issue for Abraham, most of the prophets in the Jewish scriptures, most of the rival factions in religion in those times in fact.

    There's very good reasons for this, Erich Fromm wrote about it, idolatry and illusions arising from it or of a similar kind ARE arguably significant enough in human history to be a cornerstone of all thinking.

    Part of the progressive nature of believing in God, especially a non-corporeal God which could not be imagined, depicted etc. was that it was a real and "worthy" alternative to devotion to nation, "Gods" in the sense of kings, mere creations of the human mind or ideologies, like race, creed, class or nation. You see?

    Now my understanding of all this is that it is meant as insight, an objective observation, that God is inconceivable, that idolatry is a blind alley, product of alienation and seperation but that is a pretty different thing from an active prohibition which mandates use of force and violence.

    Its too easy to make sweeping generalisations about political islam, if all political muslims are meant to behead all non-believers or apostates then its curious that they have allowed christians and even jews to remain in their conquered territories provided they pay taxes or fines in order to do so, although I suspect that this has more to do with medieval-ism and the way they imagine the crusades and their continuity (ironically I think that the liberal and western post-enlightenment rationalisation of this as all unabashed western aggression has had something to do with this and at least reinforces the thinking going on).

    Its all wrong and its all terrorism and accusations of apostacy or infidelity are too easily exploited by the sorts of sado-masochists who flock to those particular banners, I dont know that they are all set on beheading everyone though.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I think the one that kicked the dog should have the penalty, not the dog..
    Aye, observing a non-aggression principle that would be the case.

Similar Threads

  1. Ji vs. Je
    By onemoretime in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 11:16 PM
  2. Charlie Brown and co.
    By NewEra in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-30-2009, 08:25 PM
  3. Pe/Ji vs Pi/Je
    By substitute in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 04:40 AM
  4. Charlie Brooker
    By dynamiteninja in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 11:16 AM
  5. Is it Illogical to be Dominantly Je?
    By Blackwater in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-06-2007, 09:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO