2020 French Terrorist Beheadings and Attacks Thread

[Sarderia]

There is no claiming. If you do something legal and a Muslim decapitates you in public for it -no matter what- you're the victim. And no, it's not wrong to intentionally, or otherwise, disrespect religious figures.

Legality doesn't come into it. Something can be morally wrong and be legal at the same time.

For example, I could walk out onto the street with a loudspeaker and suggest that all LGBT people deserve to be exterminated like vermin. Morally speaking, it's wrong. Legally speaking, it's acceptable, as hate speech laws do not cover anyone outside of race, ethnicity, or national origin where I live.

Is it wrong for people to behead others in the street? Yes. Is it wrong for people to disrespect religious figures? Absolutely.

"LGBT people being exterminated like vermin" is not legally nor morally acceptable. It is a clear hate speech and calling for someone others' deaths. You can go to jail for just saying that.

On the other hand, "disrespecting" religious figures is extremely subjective. Countless people has been tried, imprisoned, and even executed over "blasphemy". You can say all you want about all religious figures and it would still be legal and morally acceptable (providing you don't intentionally "hate" them). If someone harmed you for that, you are the clear victim from both moral and legal grounds.

[The Alma Mater]

I'm a Muslim, and I think the way this teacher was treated was way, way too extreme. Of course, being a Muslim, I'm against depictions of Prophet Muhammad being produced, but I'm not going to judge you if you do it (as long as it's respectful and not demeaning) since it's your choice. I'm not going to decapitate you over it.

I like how you found it necessary to start your posts with excuses and expressing understanding for the subhuman piece of killer trash.

[The Restored Danelaw]

There is no claiming. If you do something legal and a Muslim decapitates you in public for it -no matter what- you're the victim. And no, it's not wrong to intentionally, or otherwise, disrespect religious figures.

Legality doesn't come into it. Something can be morally wrong and be legal at the same time.

For example, I could walk out onto the street with a loudspeaker and suggest that all LGBT people deserve to be exterminated like vermin. Morally speaking, it's wrong. Legally speaking, it's acceptable, as hate speech laws do not cover anyone outside of race, ethnicity, or national origin where I live.

Is it wrong for people to behead others in the street? Yes. Is it wrong for people to disrespect religious figures? Absolutely.

The former is both wrong and (in most places with a hate speech law) also illegal. The latter is neither wrong nor (should be) illegal.

"I'm not liking the direction this discussion is making.

It's beginning to sound like because there exist radical elements within a religion we have to accommodate them so they don't do something stupid like decapitating a teacher? Are we recreating appeasement but Theologically?

So all a religion needs to do to get concessions off a government is start killing people so that everyone else has to find harmony with them by making new laws?"

-OOC

Within Europe, this doesn't really apply to all religions, mostly just Muslims.

[Dolgo]

Not much to add, was the teacher wrong in showing the pictures of Muhammad?

It was wrong to intentionally disrespect religious figures full stop. At this point it's no longer a matter of "free speech" but "how many Muslims can we piss off and then claim victimhood when they retaliate".

Victim blaming at its finest. It's one thing to be against fuelling religious disharmony, it's another thing to claim that a victim of murder essentially "deserved it" because they disrespected another person's religion. What the teacher did wasn't wise, but it doesn't warrant a beheading.

Everyone in France, as with any society, needs to learn to get along with each other. Respect is a two-way street and compromises need to be made on both sides—within reason. That being said, the level of disrespect of a beheading is so far from the level of disrespect of religious offence that the two cannot be compared at the same level of reasonableness.

I agree that laws need to prevent religious disharmony from spreading in the first place, but let's call an act of extremism for what it is.

You decapitate someone because they offended your religious beliefs? You are 100% evil. Should the teacher have shown a visual depiction of their prophet? No, but what happened to him as a result was pure utter evil. Every person, from every background, must condemn such barbarism.

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

Within Europe, this doesn't really apply to all religions, mostly just Muslims.

"Maybe today, but what about tomorrow?"

-OOC

[Costa Fierro]

"I'm not liking the direction this discussion is making.

It's beginning to sound like because there exist radical elements within a religion we have to accommodate them so they don't do something stupid like decapitating a teacher? Are we recreating appeasement but Theologically?

So all a religion needs to do to get concessions off a government is start killing people so that everyone else has to find harmony with them by making new laws?"

-OOC

It's more like a saying we have in NZ: "don't be a dick, aye".

You can criticise the fundamentalist aspects of Islam without degrading Islam and Muslims.

[The Giant Space Wyrm]

It's more like a saying we have in NZ: "don't be a dick, aye".

You can criticise the fundamentalist aspects of Islam without degrading Islam and Muslims.

"Sure you could, but you shouldn't have to.

People take the piss on Christians all the time because they kind of deserve it. We do it all the times to flat earthers and other conspiracy theorists, why should we not be able to do the same to Islam and Muslims?"

-OOC

[Costa Fierro]

"LGBT people being exterminated like vermin" is not legally nor morally acceptable. It is a clear hate speech and calling for someone others' deaths. You can go to jail for just saying that.

Like I said, it's not illegal to say such things where I live. Hate speech laws don't cover them. Replace LGBT people with sex, gender, disability, etc. It's all legal.

Is it wrong? Absolutely. But it's legal, which is my point. What is legal is not exactly moral, and vice versa. People saying "but it was legal" are saying that as a justification for acting immorally. It's the same kind of argument the far right uses to justify their own brand of hate: it's legal, therefore it's acceptable.

On the other hand, "disrespecting" religious figures is extremely subjective. Countless people has been tried, imprisoned, and even executed over "blasphemy". You can say all you want about all religious figures and it would still be legal and morally acceptable (providing you don't intentionally "hate" them). If someone harmed you for that, you are the clear victim from both moral and legal grounds.

If you get beheaded, sure. But don't be surprised when it happens. Which is my point. If you go about intentionally provoking people, don't act surprised when they retaliate.

[Costa Fierro]

The former is both wrong and (in most places with a hate speech law) also illegal. The latter is neither wrong nor (should be) illegal.

In other words, you should have the right to absolve oneself from personal responsibility for one's actions, correct?

[Costa Fierro]

Victim blaming at its finest. It's one thing to be against fuelling religious disharmony, it's another thing to claim that a victim of murder essentially "deserved it" because they disrespected another person's religion. What the teacher did wasn't wise, but it doesn't warrant a beheading.

As I said, beheading is wrong. But so is what they did. People shouldn't be surprised when things like this happen. It's a life lesson those of a certain political persuasion don't seem to want to learn, especially given they're the biggest proponents of personal responsibility.

I agree that laws need to prevent religious disharmony from spreading in the first place, but let's call an act of extremism for what it is.

Extremism happens when all other avenues have been exhausted. You start suggesting that laws need to be instituted to protect groups of people from being the target of attacks against their character and suddenly the personal responsibility advocates decide that their favourite concept no longer applies.

Is the act that was committed warranted? No. But don't deny that the act has stirred a lot of anger, and in the name of social cohesion, creating further anger is an extremely idiotic thing to do.

[Albrenia]

Not being a dick is a good thing, but when someone does something rude or disrespectful, and then the offended party kills them over it, I'm siding with the jerk. A reasonable response to being offended is to file a complaint, suck it up or if you're feeling really childish insult them back in some way.

Being a dick is not a killable offense.

[Albrenia]

As I said, beheading is wrong. But so is what they did. People shouldn't be surprised when things like this happen. It's a life lesson those of a certain political persuasion don't seem to want to learn, especially given they're the biggest proponents of personal responsibility.

I think I've known you long enough on these forums to know it's not what you mean, but this does sort of sound like:

"Beating your wife is wrong, but is it really that hard to get a meal on the table when he gets home? Really, people should be more punctual."

One minor wrong does not justify this sort of response, nor even slightly put the blame for it on the victim, no matter how much of a dick they are.

[Picairn]

If you get beheaded, sure. But don't be surprised when it happens. Which is my point. If you go about intentionally provoking people, don't act surprised when they retaliate.

Disproportionate retribution is wrong no matter how much you try to justify it.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

People keep bringing up the death penalty, but capital punishment wouldn't be very helpful. The death penalty wouldn't impact Islamic extremists, because they believe that being killed in Jihad is a free ticket to their paradise. According to their interpretation of Islam, if you die in Jihad your sins are automatically forgiven (I'm probably over simplifying). To be executed by what they see as an anti-Islamic government, for carrying out an act in the name of Allah, would be totally acceptable in their minds. If anything death is preferable to life. If they die as a result of Jihad, they died for Allah, while fighting against the infidel. How is being a martyr, and a guaranteed ticket to paradise a deterrent? They have very little intention of simply going on about their lives after they do something like this. This terrorist was killed by the police of what he believed was an anti-Islamic power, while carrying out an act in the name of Allah. As far as he, and those who believe the same as he does, he is in paradise right now, being rewarded.

Obviously this is not the interpretation of all Muslims, but it is the one many extremists follow.

That's quite good for a first post! I think you repeated your point a bit too much.

I oppose the death penalty generally, and certainly agree with you that it would be particularly useless as deterrent to Islamic extremists.

"Death penalty for murderers" is the last gasp of the debunked principle "an eye for an eye".

[The Restored Danelaw]

On the other hand, "disrespecting" religious figures is extremely subjective. Countless people has been tried, imprisoned, and even executed over "blasphemy". You can say all you want about all religious figures and it would still be legal and morally acceptable (providing you don't intentionally "hate" them). If someone harmed you for that, you are the clear victim from both moral and legal grounds.

If you get beheaded, sure. But don't be surprised when it happens. Which is my point. If you go about intentionally provoking people, don't act surprised when they retaliate.

And when they retaliate, any sort of retaliation other than through legal channels (and that should be easy, given how quickly "that offends me" is becoming grounds for new laws) makes them the aggressor and me the victim, while prior to their retaliation, there had been no victim in the first place.

[Ibakobit Xhepn]

This is why religion needs to be outlawed. That teacher had every right to do that, hey, I would've done the same! It just shows how generations of irrational brainwashing can cause major unrest globally for some ridiculous reasons. It angers me to see that people just haven't woken up yet.

[The Alma Mater]

"I'm not liking the direction this discussion is making.

It's beginning to sound like because there exist radical elements within a religion we have to accommodate them so they don't do something stupid like decapitating a teacher? Are we recreating appeasement but Theologically?

So all a religion needs to do to get concessions off a government is start killing people so that everyone else has to find harmony with them by making new laws?"

-OOC

It's more like a saying we have in NZ: "don't be a dick, aye".

You can criticise the fundamentalist aspects of Islam without degrading Islam and Muslims.

What is degrading about having a debate about the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, which was a.relevant current event ? The teacher even went the extra mile by offering the students the chance to not look at the cartoons under discussion - something he imo should NOT have done because it influences the debate.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

"LGBT people being exterminated like vermin" is not legally nor morally acceptable. It is a clear hate speech and calling for someone others' deaths. You can go to jail for just saying that.

Like I said, it's not illegal to say such things where I live. Hate speech laws don't cover them. Replace LGBT people with sex, gender, disability, etc. It's all legal.

Is it wrong? Absolutely. But it's legal, which is my point. What is legal is not exactly moral, and vice versa. People saying "but it was legal" are saying that as a justification for acting immorally. It's the same kind of argument the far right uses to justify their own brand of hate: it's legal, therefore it's acceptable.

Ideally, everything immoral would be illegal. But to do that, we'd have to bring the whole scale of punishments into alignment, so that sometimes burgling a defenseless persons house would be seen as worse than murdering a scumbag who was hassling the same person.

Not to mention intervening in all the lesser crimes, with something other than punishment. The problem is, whenever the average person becomes aware of a crime (other than one they committed, or their loved ones committed) they go hard to vengeance. The victim is an innocent person like them, the criminal is some subhuman monster, and behind the screen they can't do anything about it, so they're moved to vote for Tough On Crime and the Death Penalty ... and only a few are moved to spend money making society better and fairer so the crimes happen less often.

Vengeance is not the answer. There is literally no answer to crime, there's no undoing it once it has happened. We need to lift up the kids raised in disadvantage (which btw includes kids raised in extreme Islam or extremes of any other religion) so they will get the same benefit from the same effort as any other kid, in adult society. Nobody is born a criminal, and whatever harm is done to them by parents and siblings ... and crazy old men who live through others by preaching ... can be undone by a compassionate society.

[Dolgo]

Like I said, it's not illegal to say such things where I live. Hate speech laws don't cover them. Replace LGBT people with sex, gender, disability, etc. It's all legal.

Is it wrong? Absolutely. But it's legal, which is my point. What is legal is not exactly moral, and vice versa. People saying "but it was legal" are saying that as a justification for acting immorally. It's the same kind of argument the far right uses to justify their own brand of hate: it's legal, therefore it's acceptable.

Ideally, everything immoral would be illegal. But to do that, we'd have to bring the whole scale of punishments into alignment, so that sometimes burgling a defenseless persons house would be seen as worse than murdering a scumbag who was hassling the same person.

Not to mention intervening in all the lesser crimes, with something other than punishment. The problem is, whenever the average person becomes aware of a crime (other than one they committed, or their loved ones committed) they go hard to vengeance. The victim is an innocent person like them, the criminal is some subhuman monster, and behind the screen they can't do anything about it, so they're moved to vote for Tough On Crime and the Death Penalty ... and only a few are moved to spend money making society better and fairer so the crimes happen less often.

Vengeance is not the answer. There is literally no answer to crime, there's no undoing it once it has happened. We need to lift up the kids raised in disadvantage (which btw includes kids raised in extreme Islam or extremes of any other religion) so they will get the same benefit from the same effort as any other kid, in adult society. Nobody is born a criminal, and whatever harm is done to them by parents and siblings ... and crazy old men who live through others by preaching ... can be undone by a compassionate society.

Ah, yes. Love conquers all. Blank slate psychology. We're all born equal, but society makes us bad. You're welcome to believe that if it helps.

[The Huskar Social Union]

I know that drawings of Muhammad offend Muslims, but that does not come close to excusing murdering and decapitating someone. You can fuck right off with that and all the other extremist bollocks.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

People keep bringing up the death penalty, but capital punishment wouldn't be very helpful. The death penalty wouldn't impact Islamic extremists, because they believe that being killed in Jihad is a free ticket to their paradise. According to their interpretation of Islam, if you die in Jihad your sins are automatically forgiven (I'm probably over simplifying). To be executed by what they see as an anti-Islamic government, for carrying out an act in the name of Allah, would be totally acceptable in their minds. If anything death is preferable to life. If they die as a result of Jihad, they died for Allah, while fighting against the infidel. How is being a martyr, and a guaranteed ticket to paradise a deterrent? They have very little intention of simply going on about their lives after they do something like this. This terrorist was killed by the police of what he believed was an anti-Islamic power, while carrying out an act in the name of Allah. As far as he, and those who believe the same as he does, he is in paradise right now, being rewarded.

Obviously this is not the interpretation of all Muslims, but it is the one many extremists follow.

The death penalty is not about the perpetrator, nor is it merely about its potential deterring effect. It's about asserting the monopoly of violence that the state (should) hold.

Such nonsense. The state can imprison you for life, at its own expense. That is a greater demonstration of force than killing you, which any punk with a knife could do. And not trivially, it demonstrates restraint in the use of force.

In the event a citizen of the state is unlawfully killed, the state must re-assert its power by taking the life of the murderer. This also gives the public a greater sense of justice and sends the message that certain crimes will carry the ultimate punishment.

Your definition of "greater justice" is suspect, and actually rejected by most countries. Particularly most democratic countries! If the people wanted murderers killed by the state, wouldn't democratic countries generally do it? Actually the US is out on a limb here, which I can only explain by philosophical individualism combining with a cultural inclination to make problems go away quickly and simply.

Well there's doing everything as cheaply as possible, and if this was the 1980's I would consider that a sufficient explanation for the US wanting to retain the sociopathic method "use of lethal force against individuals". But it's a quarter century later and you're still for it, despite it being more expensive to the state than life imprisonment.

Australia abolished the death penalty in 1973, and the last execution was in 1967. That moment when a former penal colony which asked for independence without fighting a war, and still has the Queen of England as sovereign ... doesn't need execution to assert its power over the citizens. *smug*

As for religious extremists, there's no easy way around that. Certainly they would feel like a hero regardless of what was done against them. In the end, their existence cannot be tolerated by society once they commit murder. After being found guilty in a court of law, the just decision of the state is to sentence them to capital punishment.

There is an easy way around that. It's to give their children extra support in school, and adapt the school environment for them so they feel welcome, and just for any other kids present to them a model of society which is BETTER and more stimulating and more gratifying to them, than home life. Some kids don't need this, but in my opinion around half of kids in developed nations need and deserve something better than the life their own parents model for them. All of schooling should be re-oriented towards this, and away from formal education: school is a hard-won opportunity for government to model the society which children will have to live in when they leave their parents home. A necessary compromise is to give up standardization: all schools can't be the same, some must be allowed lower formal learning standards, to present a more varied choice to students (or their advocates) and there must also be some third party, a schooling advocate, who gives support to each student in choosing which school or class is best for them. Schools have their own agendas, they would cherry-pick students if they could. Parents and the religious mentors who influence them, also have an agenda, and in far too many cases have a vision of how they want their child to grow up. There needs to be a third party, an advocate for each child, and when we as a society have mastered AI, each child WILL have their own advocate to strengthen their will and knowledge, give trusted advice on life decisions, and grow up alongside each child. Perhaps there will be problems later in life, as people rebel against their childhood AI mentor, but that is a small price to pay for all the trouble we have now with "rites of passage" into adulthood. The future is bright, for individualism AND for social cohesion, and I'm sorry if my rant makes the present seem so dim.

Every problem in human society is caused by bad parenting. And though I'm sure I'd have been a good parent (at least to one child) I am glad I never took that moral risk. Parents, go easy on the religious teaching please! However sure you are of your religion, let your child find their own purpose in life. Extreme religion will force them to fight battles that probably you didn't ever have to, it's no more ethical than press-ganging child soldiers.

[Albrenia]

On the aside of the death penalty, in my opinion it is barbaric, ineffective as a deterrent and any decent society neither needs nor wants it.

[Senkaku]

If you get beheaded, sure. But don't be surprised when it happens. Which is my point. If you go about intentionally provoking people, don't act surprised when they retaliate.

Disproportionate retribution is wrong no matter how much you try to justify it.

no one is trying to fucking "justify" decapitating people in the streets lmao they're just suggesting that the massively disproportionate retaliation that we all agree is evil... doesn't make the first thing good, right, considerate, or beneficial to the social order lol

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Ideally, everything immoral would be illegal. But to do that, we'd have to bring the whole scale of punishments into alignment, so that sometimes burgling a defenseless persons house would be seen as worse than murdering a scumbag who was hassling the same person.

Not to mention intervening in all the lesser crimes, with something other than punishment. The problem is, whenever the average person becomes aware of a crime (other than one they committed, or their loved ones committed) they go hard to vengeance. The victim is an innocent person like them, the criminal is some subhuman monster, and behind the screen they can't do anything about it, so they're moved to vote for Tough On Crime and the Death Penalty ... and only a few are moved to spend money making society better and fairer so the crimes happen less often.

Vengeance is not the answer. There is literally no answer to crime, there's no undoing it once it has happened. We need to lift up the kids raised in disadvantage (which btw includes kids raised in extreme Islam or extremes of any other religion) so they will get the same benefit from the same effort as any other kid, in adult society. Nobody is born a criminal, and whatever harm is done to them by parents and siblings ... and crazy old men who live through others by preaching ... can be undone by a compassionate society.

Ah, yes. Love conquers all. Blank slate psychology. We're all born equal, but society makes us bad. You're welcome to believe that if it helps.

You're welcome to blame society for everything bad about yourself, and give credit to your parents' genes for everything good about you. But I do have to wonder what is left. Where are you coming from, fella?

[Nuroblav]

If it's to the point where drawings of a holy figure is more outrageous to you than decapitation, then...perhaps it's worth taking a step back from things.

It's a common theme among quite a few: concerned deeply with moral outrages, while seeming indifferent to...I don't know...actual outrages.

On the aside of the death penalty, in my opinion it is barbaric, ineffective as a deterrent and any decent society neither needs nor wants it.

True. While I can see why people would see it fit, it's still too barbaric for my liking. I'm also not gonna trust the state with that sort of thing: it has enough of a monopoly on violence as it is.