Jump to content
IGNORED

French mag Charlie Hebdo attacked by gunmen, 12 dead


Perezvon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 798
  • Created
  • Last Reply

also there's the issue of street artist 'combo', who was beaten up by "four youths" and who himself has a muslim mother, and a somewhat liberal slant as attested to by some of his past art projects. he was beaten up over a piece he did in response to the charlie hebdo shooting, which apparently offended some people in the area of paris where he put it up. the message of the piece? "coexist", with an islamic crescent, star of david, and christian cross making up 3 of the letters. combo himself hasn't come out and said the youths were muslims, but he did say this:

"I am deliberately being vague about the description of these cowards and where it all happened. To me, it doesn’t matter where they come from, what colour their skin is, what their religion or their political ideas are. In this context, all they represent is stupidity and ignorance."

 

So maybe it's just me but i think it's pretty safe to say they were muslims. who were offended by the word 'coexist'. muslims who are probably children of immigrants, living in a country their parents immigrated to, and who are offended by the word coexist. offended enough to beat up the guy spreading that pacifist message around. a guy who is a liberal, an artist, who is spreading around a message of coexistence (and has been spreading this type of message for a while, and it seems that he usually aims it at non-muslims to let them know that muslims are people too and that the *non-muslims* should more of an effort to coexist with *muslims*), who has a muslim mother, and got beat up almost surely by muslims, yet refuses to come out and actually say that his attackers were muslims, because it would 'throw more fuel on the fire'. is this or isn't this a prime example of what the word irony was invented for? the irony here is so perfect and delicious it could be a cake topping. his art was promoting 'tolerance of muslims'. and he got beat up for it. by muslims. who didn't tolerate his message of coexistence.

 

it's also amusing how mainstream news outlets seem to have mostly avoided this story. i'm sure that tactic of burying our heads in the sand and not reporting true factual news/situational updates about whats going on in our neighborhoods hasn't at all contributed to what combo himself laments as a "growing group of extremists in France” though, has it? but lets stay the course, lets keep sweeping this problem under the rug, maybe it will just go away?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if it really was stupidity and ignorance and had nothing to do with their alleged faith?

well considering they assaulted the guy because of his message of 'coexist', i think they didn't like something about the idea of 'coexisting'. i also think that if they were white french natives who assaulted a muslim looking, liberal activist street artist for putting the word coexist up on a wall, you wouldn't hesitate to break out the 'ists' and 'isms'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And if it really was stupidity and ignorance and had nothing to do with their alleged faith?

well considering they assaulted the guy because of his message of 'coexist', i think they didn't like something about the idea of 'coexisting'. i also think that if they were white french natives who assaulted a muslim looking, liberal activist street artist for putting the word coexist up on a wall, you wouldn't hesitate to break out the 'ists' and 'isms'.

 

 

Right. So that's related to the tenets of their faith as practiced by the majority of muslims all over the world how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a stronger case for 'coexist' to be problematic because of the whole Israel/palestina ordeal, but whatever. The idea this is all rooted in political bullcrap instead of religion is probably too far out there for a lot of people. Just blame religion, even though most of these extremists hardly got a clue about the religion they think they represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I also believe that a deeper philosophy (probably more than Francis Bacon thought) is a religion's biggest enemy. There is so many things in religions that fail against some bigger philosophy and logic.

 

is kant deep enough for you?

 

 

I have not read Kant. I developed my personal philosophy that I consider deep enough. I now expect you laughing to be honest but I truly believe my philosophy can stand its ground. It is mostly based on fatalism, determinism, nihilism and a theory of free will. A significant part of it is based on relatively recent neurological discoveries (the free will part). This combination of movements can, in my opinion, discredit all religion I know or at least reduce it to pure personal beliefs (please note that I don't say a god does not exist). I also believe that neurology and theory of free will open us a door that will make many huge philosophers of history "obsolete". Sometimes it is enough to disprove a single fundamental argument that all other arguments are based on.

 

Religions are just plain wrong. A belief in a god (or something else) is not.

 

Sorry if I sound presumptuous.

 

 

 

how about you just dont know. like everyone else. it's ok to say I DONT KNOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ego doesn't like to admit that

it's admitting defeat

and the ego, heavily entwined with the intoxicating mind, can't take a defeat

with defeat the ego loses purpose

with defeat the mind loses its power

with admitting not knowing, the mind loosens its grip

its grip which it cherishes so

like its precious

its precious knowledge of knowing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest WNS000

 

 

 

 

 

I also believe that a deeper philosophy (probably more than Francis Bacon thought) is a religion's biggest enemy. There is so many things in religions that fail against some bigger philosophy and logic.

 

is kant deep enough for you?

 

 

I have not read Kant. I developed my personal philosophy that I consider deep enough. I now expect you laughing to be honest but I truly believe my philosophy can stand its ground. It is mostly based on fatalism, determinism, nihilism and a theory of free will. A significant part of it is based on relatively recent neurological discoveries (the free will part). This combination of movements can, in my opinion, discredit all religion I know or at least reduce it to pure personal beliefs (please note that I don't say a god does not exist). I also believe that neurology and theory of free will open us a door that will make many huge philosophers of history "obsolete". Sometimes it is enough to disprove a single fundamental argument that all other arguments are based on.

 

Religions are just plain wrong. A belief in a god (or something else) is not.

 

Sorry if I sound presumptuous.

 

 

 

how about you just dont know. like everyone else. it's ok to say I DONT KNOW.

 

 

So, say it! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is everyone wanking? saaaaaaaaaaaaafe

 

lemme break out my specials home-made vegetable oil hand lube,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

fnnnnnnnnnnn fnnnnnnnnnnnnnn,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i'm not looking anyone in the eye during this mind,,,,,,,, cos that would just be too weird,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


got oil on the fuckin keyboard nowwwwwwww

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.