The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Michel Houllebecq is France's most famous fiction writer. He wrote Soumission, which is about Islam taking political control of France in 2022. Naturally, Sharia becomes the law of the land.

It's a coincidence that this book came out at the same time as the attack on Charlie Hebdo occurred. Also coincidental, Houllebecq was featured on the cover of Charlie Hebdo that same day.

Houllebecq was not the first author to suggest that France could experience a dramatic change in its governance. Back in the 1960s Leon Uris, the author of Exodus, suggested that of any country in Europe France was the most likely to turn communist. But that never happened.

That aside, I was wondering, would Islamic governance be good in dealing with the environment and climate change. I don't think so. That wouldn't be a top priority for them since they would be too busy with other things.

spike wrote:Michel Houllebecq is France's most famous fiction writer. He wrote Soumission, which is about Islam taking political control of France in 2022. Naturally, Sharia becomes the law of the land.

It's a coincidence that this book came out at the same time as the attack on Charlie Hebdo occurred. Also coincidental, Houllebecq was featured on the cover of Charlie Hebdo that same day.

Houllebecq was not the first author to suggest that France could experience a dramatic change in its governance. Back in the 1960s Leon Uris, the author of Exodus, suggested that of any country in Europe France was the most likely to turn communist. But that never happened.

That aside, I was wondering, would Islamic governance be good in dealing with the environment and climate change. I don't think so. That wouldn't be a top priority for them since they would be too busy with other things.

I think climate change would improve because they are so darned primitive, and too busy praying and beheading to be creating greenhouse gases.

Lev Muishkin wrote:The issue can be more easily solved that that. Don't f****** interfere in the politics of the middle east in the first place: a conflict that has cost the west trillions since 1918.

Putting a gag on a few cartoonists is not going to solve any problems. All it would do is place unreasonable burdens on free speech, which would only be of benefit to those that would enslave us all.

This is completely nonsense and babble.

Can we be racists? No? ..already a limitation on free speech there!

Can we talk about company secrets that we have signed a contract not revealing? No? ..also a limitation on free speech there!

Can we slander people and make unprofaned accusations that they are child molesters, just to have fun? No! Also a limitation on freedom of speech there!

..so we already have a lot of limitation on our "freedom of speech" so why not try to show a bit of intellect and maturity to STFU about rabid Muslims and their religion, least till times are more mature for such talks! Try look at the result, only very rabid westerners would not understand to keep their stupid mouths shut to avoid blood shed, they are just as rabid as those they accuse of being rabid!

Idiots! ..retards!

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

spike wrote:Michel Houllebecq is France's most famous fiction writer. He wrote Soumission, which is about Islam taking political control of France in 2022. Naturally, Sharia becomes the law of the land.

It's a coincidence that this book came out at the same time as the attack on Charlie Hebdo occurred. Also coincidental, Houllebecq was featured on the cover of Charlie Hebdo that same day.

Houllebecq was not the first author to suggest that France could experience a dramatic change in its governance. Back in the 1960s Leon Uris, the author of Exodus, suggested that of any country in Europe France was the most likely to turn communist. But that never happened.

That aside, I was wondering, would Islamic governance be good in dealing with the environment and climate change. I don't think so. That wouldn't be a top priority for them since they would be too busy with other things.

I think climate change would improve because they are so darned primitive, and too busy praying and beheading to be creating greenhouse gases.

You've heard of OIL?
ANd thought about where it comes from?
Primitive?

http://www.mha.com.sa/profile.php

http://tcg-intl.com/project.php?project_id=16

HexHammer wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:The issue can be more easily solved that that. Don't f****** interfere in the politics of the middle east in the first place: a conflict that has cost the west trillions since 1918.

Putting a gag on a few cartoonists is not going to solve any problems. All it would do is place unreasonable burdens on free speech, which would only be of benefit to those that would enslave us all.

This is completely nonsense and babble.

Can we be racists? No? ..already a limitation on free speech there!

Can we talk about company secrets that we have signed a contract not revealing? No? ..also a limitation on free speech there!

Can we slander people and make unprofaned accusations that they are child molesters, just to have fun? No! Also a limitation on freedom of speech there!

..so we already have a lot of limitation on our "freedom of speech" so why not try to show a bit of intellect and maturity to STFU about rabid Muslims and their religion, least till times are more mature for such talks! Try look at the result, only very rabid westerners would not understand to keep their stupid mouths shut to avoid blood shed, they are just as rabid as those they accuse of being rabid!

Idiots! ..retards!

Sometimes a take a sneeky peek at why I put people on ignore.
You made a very good job at reminding me why I put YOU on ignore.
You are just an ignorant twat.
I know I am wasting my time telling you, but here goes.
1) You have taken my post out of context.
2) you have responded to things not included in the post.
3) your tone is polemic bordering on rabid.
4) and all your points are completely irrelevant.

I could take you through it step by step, but I realise I have wasted quite enough time on you.

Hex hammer has me on ignore but not me him. I ironically consider that a win in my win column, and not for any reason you might expect, just there is no reasoning with Hex. I don't dislike his points, I don't like them, I just don't anything them, they are trite and uninformed. A troll even could do better.

At least when my cavernous guff is trite and uninformed I have the good grace to claim Devil's advocate, or admit that I was wrong and wrong beyond reason. Hex is always right. Humility is a virtue Hex, who is an old man, will sadly never learn and that is probably the biggest reason you should ignore him. He knows everything about nothing, and not too much about that.

There are seldom people I consider incorrigible, but you have hit on one. He wont read this so I have no reason to doubt it will be deleted as an ad hominem. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I consider it good form to inform anyone that being always right, and yet always wrong is not very smart.

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Blaggard wrote:

great rebuttal wrote:Great. So what?

He who is in a glass house should maybe not think about throwing stones was the point. Islam is only evil from the odd perspective of now.

Christianity. Judaism, and Islam are all evil in a range of ways.

BTW, I don't live in any of those greenhouses.

Good at least you got the point. Some never will even if it is a sword held above their head by a horse hair.

Blaggard wrote:Hex hammer has me on ignore but not me him. I ironically consider that a win in my win column, and not for any reason you might expect, just there is no reasoning with Hex. I don't dislike his points, I don't like them, I just don't anything them, they are trite and uninformed. A troll even could do better.

At least when my cavernous guff is trite and uninformed I have the good grace to claim Devil's advocate, or admit that I was wrong and wrong beyond reason. Hex is always right. Humility is a virtue Hex, who is an old man, will sadly never learn and that is probably the biggest reason you should ignore him. He knows everything about nothing, and not too much about that.

There are seldom people I consider incorrigible, but you have hit on one. He wont read this so I have no reason to doubt it will be deleted as an ad hominem. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I consider it good form to inform anyone that being always right, and yet always wrong is not very smart.

Ad hominem?
You do know this is Philosophy Now? Nothing gets deleted, there is basically no moderation.

Look.
[Edited by iMod]
See!

Lev Muishkin wrote:Putting a gag on a few cartoonists is not going to solve any problems. All it would do is place unreasonable burdens on free speech, which would only be of benefit to those that would enslave us all.

Ok let me try again.

This is blowing things out of proportion, in a very hysterical way.

How will it put an "unreasonable burden on free speech"?

How will shutting up some rabid cartoonists enslave us? Asking them to stop insulting the prophet will enslave the rest of the world? ...you are a complete retard!

HexHammer wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:The issue can be more easily solved that that. Don't f****** interfere in the politics of the middle east in the first place: a conflict that has cost the west trillions since 1918.

Putting a gag on a few cartoonists is not going to solve any problems. All it would do is place unreasonable burdens on free speech, which would only be of benefit to those that would enslave us all.

This is completely nonsense and babble.

Can we be racists? No? ..already a limitation on free speech there!

Can we talk about company secrets that we have signed a contract not revealing? No? ..also a limitation on free speech there!

Can we slander people and make unprofaned accusations that they are child molesters, just to have fun? No! Also a limitation on freedom of speech there!

..so we already have a lot of limitation on our "freedom of speech" so why not try to show a bit of intellect and maturity to STFU about rabid Muslims and their religion, least till times are more mature for such talks! Try look at the result, only very rabid westerners would not understand to keep their stupid mouths shut to avoid blood shed, they are just as rabid as those they accuse of being rabid!

Idiots! ..retards!

That's an interesting point. There is a category, in America, of speech that is also unprotected called 'fighting words.' So, you can be prohibited from speech so inflammatory as to create a clear and immanent danger of causing a riot or provoking violence. The case in question here, though, would not constitute an immanent-enough danger under the law. There is a famous case where the neo-Nazis planned a parade through a community inhabited by mainly Jewish holocaust survivors and their families. The SCOTUS held that prohibiting displays of swastikas or Nazi uniforms would be illegal as they did not constitute 'fighting words.'
But part of the test of how immanent the danger would be has to include the possible reaction of the target of the speech - i.e. violent Muslims may present an immanent danger of violence where elderly Jews do not. Doesn't seem fair though to make the analysis depend on how violent the targets are.

Lev,

Let me get this straight: clusters of folks kill people, blow stuff up, and generallly go after any-thing or -one violating their notions of what is 'right' (these folks vigorously claim they do what they do because their religion demands it) and I'm a loon for taking their word for it?

Okeedoke.

*shrug*

Lev Muishkin wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Hex hammer has me on ignore but not me him. I ironically consider that a win in my win column, and not for any reason you might expect, just there is no reasoning with Hex. I don't dislike his points, I don't like them, I just don't anything them, they are trite and uninformed. A troll even could do better.

At least when my cavernous guff is trite and uninformed I have the good grace to claim Devil's advocate, or admit that I was wrong and wrong beyond reason. Hex is always right. Humility is a virtue Hex, who is an old man, will sadly never learn and that is probably the biggest reason you should ignore him. He knows everything about nothing, and not too much about that.

There are seldom people I consider incorrigible, but you have hit on one. He wont read this so I have no reason to doubt it will be deleted as an ad hominem. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I consider it good form to inform anyone that being always right, and yet always wrong is not very smart.

Ad hominem?
You do know this is Philosophy Now? Nothing gets deleted, there is basically no moderation.

Look.
[Edited by iMod]
See!

Is this a new regime?

Wyman wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Lev Muishkin wrote:The issue can be more easily solved that that. Don't f****** interfere in the politics of the middle east in the first place: a conflict that has cost the west trillions since 1918.

Putting a gag on a few cartoonists is not going to solve any problems. All it would do is place unreasonable burdens on free speech, which would only be of benefit to those that would enslave us all.

This is completely nonsense and babble.

Can we be racists? No? ..already a limitation on free speech there!

Can we talk about company secrets that we have signed a contract not revealing? No? ..also a limitation on free speech there!

Can we slander people and make unprofaned accusations that they are child molesters, just to have fun? No! Also a limitation on freedom of speech there!

..so we already have a lot of limitation on our "freedom of speech" so why not try to show a bit of intellect and maturity to STFU about rabid Muslims and their religion, least till times are more mature for such talks! Try look at the result, only very rabid westerners would not understand to keep their stupid mouths shut to avoid blood shed, they are just as rabid as those they accuse of being rabid!

Idiots! ..retards!

That's an interesting point. There is a category, in America, of speech that is also unprotected called 'fighting words.' So, you can be prohibited from speech so inflammatory as to create a clear and immanent danger of causing a riot or provoking violence. The case in question here, though, would not constitute an immanent-enough danger under the law. There is a famous case where the neo-Nazis planned a parade through a community inhabited by mainly Jewish holocaust survivors and their families. The SCOTUS held that prohibiting displays of swastikas or Nazi uniforms would be illegal as they did not constitute 'fighting words.'
But part of the test of how immanent the danger would be has to include the possible reaction of the target of the speech - i.e. violent Muslims may present an immanent danger of violence where elderly Jews do not. Doesn't seem fair though to make the analysis depend on how violent the targets are.

You do not have the correct rationale (at least I hope not). The UK has similar laws. Words or deeds are judged liable to cause trouble based on the intent by those in question, not the likely strength of retaliation.

For example; Muslims on marches in London bearing placards "Kill all those who insult the prophet", were allowed to march, but later arrested for inciting violence. There was a clear attempt to encourage murder, though no violence directly was caused by the march.

One would hope that frail old jews did not get any protection because they were to weak to be inflamed.

But Hex's posts are false.
Yes, we can be racists. There are plenty of examples on the Forum.
We are free to break a contract of silence, if to do so would be to break the law, and we have a choice to sign.
And yes we can even call people child molesters. and they are free to claim damages.
So, Hex's post was babble.

Oliver Wendell Holmes:

"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U.S. 194, 205, 206. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."

The concern is with protecting the public rather than with punishing the speaker for his intent. You are missing Hex's point, which is that the prohibition on banning free speech is not absolute - lines are drawn. Wherever lines are drawn, we may question the placement of those lines. Obscenity, slander, fighting words, and commercial speech are not protected fully, for a variety of reasons. The same or similar reasons may support banning the speech in the Hedbo case.

Lev Muishkin wrote:But Hex's posts are false.
Yes, we can be racists. There are plenty of examples on the Forum.
We are free to break a contract of silence, if to do so would be to break the law, and we have a choice to sign.
And yes we can even call people child molesters. and they are free to claim damages.
So, Hex's post was babble.

You don't know what you are talking about, in Denmark we prohibit any such thing as insulting the prophet, because we've learned our lesson with the Muhammed drawings from Jyllands-Posten (newspaper) from 2005, that made a riot in many countries, even ambassadors was send to Denmark to talk it over with our prime minister, but they were refused which only made Muslims even angrier, even today we don't recommend danes to travel to certain countries.

Wig man you are too fixated on your own rules, instead of looking at the greater picture.