Cradarc wrote:I do not know what are the murders' true intentions/perspectives. This is why my thoughts were in the form of questions. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to say they could be psychopaths. People who think "normally" tend not resort to unwarranted violence. You think it is highly unlikely that they're psychopaths in a very specific sense of the word. I think that is a fair point.
And I'm trying to explain that it is is not fair nor reasonable. It is entirely unreasonable to say they are psychopaths as we have no evidence at all to suggest that they are and it is not fair to the victims, the attackers or the discussion to unreasonably assume the motivation of why they were killed.
From what I've read so far, from what people have been able to find out, they were soldiers. This act was not something that they viewed as unwarranted, and that you just said it is is exactly the problem with calling them psychopaths. When you do so you fail to understand the actual problem, you even just excused the actual problem by saying it was unwarranted, which is the same problem that Lucrece is mentioning when he brings up Left Media's reaction (and the reason the left media is saying stupid largely has to do with that is what people want to hear and they need to maintain their ratings). So instead of dismissing this attack as the work of psychopaths please understand it is the work of a culture that believes satire of their beliefs warrants murder.
So please stop, and you should really stop using that word for anything it is a useless word both in its technical and popular usage.
What are "cultures that thrive on irrationality"?
Ones whose beliefs are arrived at without rationality. If population of a culture can't hold onto their beliefs if they start applying reason to them it is a culture that thrives on that population being unable or unwilling to think about their beliefs rationally.
Derek wrote:This attack is particularly upsetting to me because it's an attack directly on freedom of expression. The attackers are saying that they believe their "right" to not be offended supercedes anyone else's right to make fun of their religion, and they believe the penalty for violating their "right" is death. If there is any silver lining to this, I hope it renews people's interest in defending free expression and shows how backwards any "right to not be offended" is.
This is not about their right to not be offended. They didn't kill them because they are offended, they most likely killed them because the believe they sinned against their belief structure. This sin may have offended them but it is the perceived sin not the offense that led to the killing.
elasto wrote:To play devil's advocate...
Two principles are in opposition here: There's 'freedom of speech' and 'don't be a dick'.
This has been fairly well responded too, I just wanted to add the dickiness(?) starts when someone teaches someone else to be offended by something that we have no good reason to believe causes harm. To then expect the rest of society to 'not be a dick' to ones ideology when you are actively creating unreasonable beliefs they are the ones being dickish.
CorruptUser wrote:I think that the more famous Charlie Hebdo cartoons created by those that died should be out on billboards everywhere, just as a matter of spite. Build makeshift shrines for each of the fallen, with every picture of each cartoon they made, but with hidden cameras to see who defaces them. None of this censorship crap. Change the formula from 'send death threats, we comply' to 'send death threats, we double down'.
Je suis Charlie.
The intention shouldn't even be spite, it should be solidarity and support.