It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Regarding Sam Harris, I agree with the majority of his comments, including the need to allow people to be able to exercise free speech about anything, including the Holocaust, as he specifically suggests (there should be no special rules prohibiting this, regardless of any perceived 'guilt' in Europe imo).
I take issue with some of his conclusions however, because there is no way to really protect against this sort of attack (it can come from anywhere from anyone at any time) unless you ban religion or Islam in particular outright, and then to enforce that, in a capitalist system, it can lead to facism, which I don't think anyone really wants.
Personally, I think Obama is handling this very well, by being restrained in his comments about all these attacks.
And for something different, this time in North Carolina with muslims as the victims and an atheist as the alleged perpetrator:
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-31421363
And I know about the murder in North Carolina. Two wrongs don't make one right. And while the murderer was an atheist, there is no evidence whatsoever that he murdered in the name of atheism.
A big country like the US is also less readily able to be easily surveilled (unlike London for instance where I think nearly the entire city is under camera watch). There are also state laws that can impact a federal program.
So the approach to protect oneself and the response has to be different by area I think.
Then the problem is the 2nd amendment. In any case, avoiding confrontation is like giving in to the threat.
Alleged ? The victims and the murderer were neighbors ! You really have to believe in weird conspiracies to forget that the overwhelming majority of murderers know their victims beforehand...
Oh I see, it's hard to make a parallel with someone killing his neighbors, and terrorism.
Although it seems you try to. Relativism, as always. You don't write the murderer was a neighbor, but you write he's an atheist. So much for claiming to avoid generalization...
Oh. Woopsie doo. I see my good friend is back to spread his love and happiness everywhere. How are you doing today?
You really are amusing. Unintentionally, no doubt.
I said alleged because he's been charged, and is entitled to a trial. Until proven guilty, it's just allegations, including his religious beliefs. Nothing to do with your conspiracy theory about my motives stated above, which is really amusing. Who are you debating? What are you debating? I've been confused throughout this thread. It could be a comprehension or communication problem.
@bondjames stick to the facts and keep away from exaggerating away from the truth, you occasionally read like a FOX news report.
Read my comments above fully about why I said alleged and then get back to me.
Your labeling is true to FOX news standards so I can safely say there is no alleged thing about that. ;)
What labelling are you referring to exactly?
the muslim and atheist bit were it was actually a neighbourly strife going way out of control. Their religious or non-religious opinions played no major role but some like to highlight that nonetheless.
His religious beliefs are alleged. It may or may not have played a part. Until there is a trial and we know all the reasons for why what happened did in fact happen, we cannot draw any conclusions at all, about anything, including whether the religious or non-religious opinions played any role. Saying otherwise is labelling of a different sort.
Similarly, until we know all the facts about Denmark, we cannot draw any conclusions here either. It could be copy cat, it could be coordinated, it could be lone-wolf, it could be anything. We don't know. Period.
That's possible @SaintMark. What you say is possible. It's even probable. Bottom line is I don't know that yet. Until we know all the facts in a trial.
I highlighted it because it's an act of violence and religion was brought up in the news reports. Whether it played a part is still to be determined and proven, hopefully in a court of law, that is why I said alleged. I did not infer anything when highlighting it. That is an incorrect assumption you are drawing on my motives. Why make this personal?
I'm not drawing and have not drawn any conclusions on anything - including Denmark.
I have said earlier that hatred is the problem. I really could care less what kind of hatred (muslim, atheist, or neighbourly) to be quite frank. I'm just sick of innocent people being killed for no darn reason. Every innocent person has the right to live their life until naturally passing, whether here or in the Middle East, or anywhere else, and irrespective of their beliefs about religion.
I agree with the sentiment of growing wary of all the killing for whatever reason. However the believes of people tend to be deadly as history proves us time after time.
I only brought it up to encourage discussion and debate. I admit I am guilty of that. I draw no conclusions.
If you really knew my thinking you may be surprised to learn it is much closer to some others here than they may think.
Some are equating me with things I am actually not, and have been throughout this thread, because I am encouraging debate. I notice a lot of passions here, understandably.
Why yes, we do.
We did not infer anything when highlighting you highlighted that. That is an incorrect assumption you are drawing on other people's motives. Why make this paranoid?
Ah, psychonalysis babble, it works for everything :)
Eh, you have the right to have some problems with atheists. Billions of people agree with you.
Wow, you just seem angy to me. I don't have a problem with atheists.
Using the same trick on and on make it less and less effective.
Me I once had a (very little) problem with a neighbour (I still have the dark spots of the water on my ceiling :) ).
Many noticed you considered the most important aspect you choose to highlight was that the murderer was an atheist. Others think it's more important to notice he was a neighbour of the victims.
Well, I really wondered what your post would have looked like if you had some problems with atheists !
I understand that with an antisemitic act by a Danish citizen in a country not much known for the poor conditions of living, all the economics explanation go out of the window, so now it's back to the drawing board... Let's say I'm not impressed. Replace "atheist" by "muslims" in your posts, and look at how they look like. Wow. Even the "I don't have a problem with muslims" line works in this context if you see what I mean.
It's "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, it means you care to some degree. If you're trying to state that you care so little that it would be impossible for you to care any less than you do, please include the 'n't'.
Thank you. :)>-
:-bd
The anger/sniping/jumping on each other's comments on this thread needs to slow down, stop, just cut it out people. Good discussion has been happening all along in this thread. Please get back to that.
Here is a link to an article in the Guardian which, for me, sums up the issues we have with liberal media seeking to "give ground" on free speeach and below is a copy of my response to the article:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/copenhagen-attacks-scandinavians-free-speech#comment-47614731
When I read the title, I feared the worse. Scandinavians value free speech FULL STOP. As soon as you see the word "but" you know you are in trouble. These arguments are as dangerous and they are spineless. When it comes to examining ideas, free speech trumps offence every time. It really is very simple. When you see main stream journos in mainstream media come out with this stuff, you realise that the battle is not purely against religious nut cases: It is against those you actively promote the idea of giving ground to them. If we are not united on this principle and waste time in forums like this rather than actually stand up for ourselves, we are making the issue so much harder to deal with. And what hope must it give those terrorists when they see articles like this?...some form of small victory for them.
I don't think I can add more to this. When someone adds the word "but" to a statement defending free speech, he is in effect forfeiting it. And, in the case of Charlie Hebdo's right to mock faith, any faith, if one adds the word "but" to a sentence condemning the attacks, he makes whatever was written before meaningless and blames the victims instead. it is craven, it is also immoral.
Actually I found it very informative.
As I said earlier, how one approaches this discussion (and the strength of how one feels about it) seems very much to depend on where one lives, as it reflects one's perspective. That is covered in the article linked above.
I was not aware of the principle of laicity for instance.
In the US, there is clear legal separation of church and state. However, would be presidents have to ensure that they wear their patriotism literally on their sleeve (the flag pin for instance, which was an issue during Obama's first run), demonstrate that they are men (or women) of faith (again something Obama had to do) and also demonstrate their loyalty to the state of Israel via the AIPAC. These are prerequisites for a successful run. However, Mormon faith (Romney's) likely may have been a deterrent. It was intentionally not discussed during his second run - unlike Obama's Christian faith during his first run, which he almost had to prove.
There is an element of identity in these discussions it seems, and in the collective response of nations. How one identifies is very personal and yet it is also collective, and can depend on where one resides. There can also be a visceral connection which is where some of the passion comes from in the press. I noticed this in the black Bond discussion on this forum a few months back as well. I find it fascinating.
Thanks @chrisisall for the grammatical correction. Very clumsy of me. Of course, I meant "couldn't care less".