Slashdot Mirror

"Hey we better raid this torrent site, they might be sharing some bad caricatures."

Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.

There is a good reason why a Muslim shouldn't make pictures of Mohammed: Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to. So buy making a picture of Mohammed, a Muslim might go the wrong way in his religion and damage himself - that's why it is forbidden.

Non-muslims wouldn't be affected by that. There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall; it doesn't put their soul in danger. And caricature or insults are not a religious problem either. Sure, insulting Mohammed isn't nice to a Muslim, just like saying "your mother is ugly" isn't nice to anyone, and you shouldn't do it, but there is no offence to the religion.

What you are describing is some caricature of socialism.

One of the primary concerns of Marx was that while in the past the workers owned tools of their trade (such as the drill you mention), industrialization changed that dynamic (why would your neighbour buy a table from you when he could buy one from factory for half the prize... and the profits go to the person who owns the factory while pre-unionization workers toil without ever earning enought to buy one of those increasingly expensive factory machines). Marx thus called for a system where society (Note: I do not use the word "government" for a reason) owns the means of (mass) production.

So your "In pure communism you wouldn't be allowed to own a drill" example is quite silly when Marx effectively said "The problem with capitalism is that we are going towards a society where you can no longer provide yourself with the tools you own" (something that you call "a private business" which supposedly "wouldn't be allowed").

I'm not defending communism, I've moved quite a bit right from my leftist youth, but I really think that you have a very poor understanding of the main concepts you are talking about.

If there are dozens of models that have been verified emperically and shown to be able to accurately predict climate conditions using historical data... not merely "they'll predict things in the future when I am dead"... then cite one.

You say it is so easy... then you don't do it. When you ask me to do easy things, I do them. Because it is easy. Saying you're not going to bother because it is too easy is just posturing and obvious posturing at that.

As to what I find offensive, you don't know me well enough to offend me. As I said at the start, your faction is so buys projecting images of demons on your rivals that you don't actually know anything about them. I am a cartoon to you. A cartoon that isn't even accurate to a caricature of myself.

I clearly didn't find your comparison to an oil shill to be offensive. Did you note that? I said rather that I'd happily cash the check. Contrary to offending me, it was something I happily embraced without any fussing about it.

Does that fit your model of someone like me? Here you might be thinking I am really that cartoon demon your ideology likes to paint over all its rivals. I'm not. I'm just not someone that takes your world view especially seriously.

I come from a different philosophical tradition then you. One that is if anything a good deal more ancient and complicated then your own. This continuing attempt to gain the moral or intellectual high ground is futile. I know where I stand and I know where you stand.

But because I don't think you realize it yet, I want you to engage in a frank discussion without further pretense. In doing this, I hope that I can if only for a moment breach the cognitive dissonance that shields your mind from enlightenment.

I await your choice. I am not stupid and I am not a fool and I am not a demon. Let us talk.

As to a model of what, clearly a model of your mother having sex with me last night.

You deserve that response for asking a completely fucking stupid question. Obviously a climate model. Ask more offensively stupid questions and I'll respect with proportional contempt.

Except there are dozens of published climate models, so asking me to supply one that you would obviously just disregard would be as you say "offensively stupid". By contrary I wondered if you were talking about a political model explaining liberal/libertarian positions based on the motivations I proposed since all you're talking about is the bogus motivations you're assigning to liberals.

As to being an oil shill, I wish. Then I would still say what I believe and get paid for my trouble.

You missed the point. I was making the example that you'd find it offensive to have your integrity questioned and your beliefs reduced to a ridiculous caricature. So why do you do it to other people?

You claim you want to have a good discussion then follow it up by saying I either have to agree with you or admit I point guns at people, I'm sorry but this is obviously a waste of my time.

One:
Without a model you have no reliable predictive capability. If you have a model, present it now or admit that you have no predictive capability.

A model of what?

Two:
Your solutions were very limited. You excluded shifting industrial practices to less wasteful methods using non-coercive means. You are very comfortable with putting a gun in someone's face, cocking the hammer back, and saying "Do what I say or I'll kill you."

Are you an Oil funded shill who wants poor sick people to die in the streets?

No?

So then why do you expect your caricature to describe me?

So not only is your coercive policy offensive and divisive. But it is also utterly ineffective because you lack the ability to force people outside your political sphere to do your bidding. You can't point a gun at the Chinese or the Indians.

Yet Europe has cut emissions so it's apparently possible (though extremely difficult). When there's a big enough problem international cooperation is possible, particularly when trade agreements can have bigger impacts than the cuts.

You say you're cynical... I believe you. I think however you don't realize that I know exactly how cynical you really are. You are attempting to manipulate the situation for your profit and power.

I'm going to put this politely.

You're as insightful a judge of character as you think you are.

Three:
As to your notion that the left are cynical libertarians. That is nonsense. They're almost uniformly hardcore statists which means they are not libertarians. That's like calling Communists cynical capitalists. Its a meaningless comparison.

If I go with your definition, they're so cynical as to bear no resemblance to libertarians.

Libertarians believe the market will regulate itself in a healthy way.

Liberals are cynical the self-regulation will be healthy, so they step in to correct it.

Russia is full of people nostaligic for the old soviet union. I love how whenever leftists get embarressed by left wing groups they always call them right wing.

Except AGW beliefs aren't based on economics but social identification. Russia probably leans left economically, but from a social perspective they are far right bordering on fascism. If you want to talking about the NAZIs (why the hell are we talking about NAZIs??) Hitler wasn't notable for his left leaning economic policies, the problem was social policies, and those are best described as far right.

You have made clear from your words that you want to play political games and have no interest in an honest discussion. I have noted that and have adjusted my posture towards you to reflect that decision.

Yes, you want an honest discussion by accusing me of pointing a gun in peoples faces.

"dot Indians, not casino Indians"

Jesus, you're not even a good troll. You are trying WAY too hard, kid. You have to try to make it look more like a thing that a stupid person would really believe. You've gone full into caricature.

Essentially, Charlie Hebdo is a freemason publication. Two of the journalist shot (Bernard Maris and Michel Renaud) were actually not just simple masons, but masters of the lodge, see: http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.hu/2015/01/i-received-this-note-today-from-grand.html

Because of that, their provocative "caricatures" followed the chief aim of masonry, which is the destruction of all deities and faiths, nominally in the name of pure reason. They published nasty cartoons of "Mohammad of the Bomb" on the front page, as well as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit engaged in a homosexual threesome coitus.

But there were two topics Charlie Hebdo never mocked: the egyptian deity Osiris and Lucifer, the fallen archangel, whom abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) consider the Satan. That's because freemasons actually worship Lucifer under the disguise of Osiris, because they think the fallen angel, in his revolt againt God, brough light of free thought and will to the mankind he sedited. On the other hand, abrahamic faiths hold that Lucifer-Satan brought sin, bodily death, pain of childbirth and expulsion from the Paradise upon mankind, as he seditioned Adam and Eve to participate in his revolt against God.

Freemasonry may be normal to united-statesians, as the dollar bill features their arcanae symbols, after all. But for europeans, freemasonry means the guillotine beheading frezy of the french revolution of 1789, continued attacks against the churches, foremost the catholic faith and assasination of properly corwned and anointed monarchs, that was so prevalent in the late 19th century, from tsarist Russia to Yugoslavia to the Habsburg Empire and France. Freemasonry means bloodshed, anarchy, civil wars and statanic worship in the collective memory of europeans.

What happened recently is that islamists got rid of Charlie Hebdo, instead of the Pope needing to send in his Swiss Guard to put those french masonic heads on pikes. (The Vatican sued Hebdo 12 times in the last 7 years to stop the blasphemy. They did this not just to stop the publication of filth, but to protect those masons themselves. That's because Jesus said in the Gospels, whoever swears and curses against the Father or the Son, his/her sins can be forgiven, but those cursing the Holy Spirit cannot have their sins forgiven, i.e. they go straight to Hell upon death. Regrettably, Charlie Hebdo was even more diligent in depicting the active desecration of the Holy Spirit, than abusing the good standing of Prophet Mohammed.)

If you have made the whole world your sworn enemies, maybe it's time to stop and think over, if it not yourself who has become evil?

Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?

That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.

I would hope for it to be a collection of all the cartoons by Charlie over the years they've been publishing.

Pictures of a long dead prophet and caricatures of top officials and warlords. Versus images of real sexually victimized children.

One image is political speech, the other are sexual scenes with those who cannot give consent.

Both are images of course, but images can capture all manner of human experience, from the banal to the brutal.

Yep, he had plenty of under age slaves 'er' serfs 'er' servants to do that to. It is the nature of monarchists, never forget they publicly tortured to death all those who disagreed with them. So forget the caricatures, tear down the monuments and humiliate their descendants who take public pride in the predations of the their ancestors. This as if it had some value beyond pointing out the true nature of psychopaths and how abusive they truly are when they gain power over others. Race, religion, culture all has nothing to do with it, simply down to gene mutations and a sub species of humanity, that quite simply should not be considered homo sapien but more accurately homo parasitus, the parasites upon humanity society and they are all over the world and they abuse religions as readily as they ruthlessly abuse people of all ages.

And another one caricaturing King John of England marriage to 12 year old Isabella of Angoulême some five centuries after Mohammed for completeness.

Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?

That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.

You have the right to take that oppotyunity. Some of us have the right to take the oportunity to not want the same thing to happen again because exactly as you mention while you are being opportune, taking the lives of those who draw caricatures because said caricatures offend them enough to kill, is not a good thing. And lastly, some of us do not have the opportunity to fuck off from one of such places where the majority of the population are offended by said drawings and would seriously kick your arse if you boasted about your atheism.
I will not recomend anything for starters, since you seem fairly advanced in experience.

I don't! Charles Hebdo should get nominated for a Darwin Awards. Instead of actually doing anything for freedom of speech, they are been making a mockery of it and dragging it through the mud simply using it to provoke about 2 billion people around the world because some ppm (people per million) of those are violent radical fanatics ready to die for whatever their delusional minds have made up. That is just imbecille and immature way of acting.

Secondly, they are actually giving those ppm of radicals are perfect target, a platform and a way to get noticed, and they doing so buy paying the highest price after painting a big red dot on their backs. That is just beyond imbecille. I doubt any of those radicals are in anyway against freedom of speech, they are probably those who benefit the most of it spreading their hate just like Charlie Hebdo is spreading their immature hate. I doubt they would attack the "magazine" if it simply portrayed those who are the supposed targets of the caricatures, the terrorists, well known, now they have a much more "noble" goal than protecting themselves of ridicule, "protecting others beliefs" no matter how far their own is from the other 2 billion muslims.

Along with that they should declare that every time a reporter working for one of their papers is killed in an attempt to silence them, they will again run Muhammads image on the front page of their papers. The responsibility for the image will be the attackers and they'll burn in hell for their idolatry. Want to stay out of hell? Stop murdering people.

"The satire will continue until the killing stops": http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=...

We should all be making as much fun of Islamists and their blessed prophet as we can. I like my caricature of Mohammed more than yours, though:

~0:-{=

(complete with bomb in turban, like in the Jyllands-Posten cartoon: http://www.zombietime.com/moha...)

It's hard to tell what the terrorists actually want to achieve.

Maybe they want to stop the publication of these kinds of pictures, like they claim, in which case refusing to print them means they win.

Maybe they want to cause outrage, hate against Muslims (including peaceful non-radical ones) and more publicity for the caricatures, so they have an easier time convincing other Muslims that the world is against them and it's time to fight back.

Well, it hasn't ever worked out that way. All you get are border skirmishes and bigotry that invariably become global if not for an irresistible force to put the hammer down on all the dumbasses. All this crap I'm hearing sounds like typical Confederate sour grapes bullshit. It's been done before. And unfortunately it looks like it will be repeated again, and again. Whatever corruption you find in a representative government can be traced right back to the voters. That is where the problem is, and nowhere else. The government and the people in it are a reflection... if not a bit of a caricature.

Seriously ? I read the rant and it sounded like a caricature of the old point counterpoint skits on saturday night live. I really expected him to end with we should have "vegetarian native americans running the country".

I mean look at this

Preserving a history that dates back thousands of years is apparently of less value to the United States than preserving the mid-20th century apparatus of war.

When he talks of the less important history, he means land that might have historical sites and will be surveyed before it is put to other uses. The " Mid 20th century apparatus of war" is from WWII and the Cold War, two of the most significant events in human history and arguably shaped the world we live in now.

Why leave it to the papers? Why leave it to the (cowardly according to American opinion) French?

EVERYONE should put one of Charlie Hebdo's caricature onto one's homepage.

This one seems to be fitting especially if you are a Jew (Texts reads in my miserable translation "You shall not critizise us").

Another nice one reads again miserably translated "Darling, I 'm just downstairs for 5 Minutes to search for that Journal" (not sure that actually is from Charlie Hebdo but it came up on google).

If you want others, especially if you are a Muslim and consider the above not annoying enough, there are more examples although lacking translation.