Not since I was a kid, Foxy :) Even so, my brain has probably turned to mush with all that red wine :) How do you think your discussion has been going so far ?

George,

Ever more fascinating:

" .... Is offending not only what they claim makes them tick, but what actually is sacred to all the 7% of French people that are Muslims the right way to convince them not to impose sharia on us because an open society that grants freedoms of speech is superior to the one which does not even for them? As I said, if I do not like your behaviour and would like to change it, is saying (or drawing) vulgar things about your mother the best way to go about it? ....."

So 7 % is going to tell 93 % how to behave ? Long may we never have 'sharia imposed on us'. And why not ? [Apart from the antidemocratic requirements, that is],

* precisely because of the vast superiority of an open society over a closed one, every time;

* because of the superiority of a society which recognises and defends the equality of the sexes over a backward, patriarchal and out-dated one which doesn't;

* because of the vast superiority of a society which allows, even encourages, discussion and dispute, even to the point of acrimony, over a vile and primitive society which doesn't.

Accept sharia ? Is that what the 'Left' is coming to ? Fall on your belly and call yourself dhimmi ? Shameful.

And rumours to the contrary, neither I or any of the blokes in my old football team know your mother. We were all just good friends.

Joe

Yeah, lovely, Loudmouth,

What would inspire you to end your post to George In such a manner?

You're interacting with a mature, educated fellow poster.

Just because you have the freedom of expression to act coarsely doesn't mean you have to enact it.

Hi Loudmouth,

I do not see at who that “slur” is supposed to be directed unless you mean those who like to ridicule others. Well, I admit, I do not endorse such right.

Somebody could find some posters or drawings offending, and you are right that this is mostly individual, although even that should be avoided. However, there are offences that are not so individual, (see my repeated reference to saying something vulgar about somebody’s mother) that most of us would find offensive; depicting the Prophet, even more if in an unfavourable form, is offensive to all Muslims and will trigger - as everybody, including the catoonists, knows - violent reaction by some, with a number of innocent victims.

I do not see how my dislike of the "right to offend" at all costs is a concession to terrorism; if at all it is a concession to honest criticism with a chance of being accepted. Being decent when criticising those whose behaviour we would want to change is not a guarantee of success (probably hopeless when applied to Islamists - they are dealt with by the Police) but being vulgar, rude is a guarantee of failure, of making them feel alienated instead of wanting to be integrated in our society. I do not know if I can convince you of something, but I can be sure I cannot if I make use of my “right” to offend you.

>>As for the integration of people who supposedly can't take any criticism without resorting to violence, as you imply, perhaps we need to be more attentive, once they are here, to educating people to understand the notion of human rights - theirs, as well as those of others - in the modern world.<<

I agree, here you speak of criticism, education etc, not offending cartoons with no other purpose than providing fun. You will hardly make somebody understand and accept the notion of human rights if you include the right to offend (rather than criticise) those you do not like.

I see now, I am repeating myself.

Yes, George, you are repeating yourself because, with respect, you still don't get it - that the right to offend is everybody else's right, 'even if' you or I wouldn't do it: what is 'right' for us, what you call 'decent', should not by any means be the limit to what other people can do.

Can you understand that ? Can't you see how authoritarian that would be ? i.e. that nobody should be more offensive than we are, in our 'decency' ?

But you also miss the point: " You will hardly make somebody understand and accept the notion of human rights if you include the right to offend (rather than criticise) those you do not like."

Please don't shift from disagreeing with a viewpoint etc., to disliking a person: that really shouldn't come into it. One can argue furiously with someone without disliking them. Whether you do or not is irrelevant, or should be. We should stick to issues, not personalities: we can leave personal attacks and ad hominems to lesser minds :)

We should always have the right to criticise ideas, and even offend those who rever them. Why should any ideas be off-limits ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I think this discussion is going great.
Much better than I thought it would.

I've got a question for you though.

What do you see as the difference between
offense and verbal abuse?

Just curious.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, it's uncovering a lot of misconceptions, isn't it ?

'Offence' and 'verbal abuse': Maybe the differentiation might be that 'offense' is what people take when their ideas are criticised or attacked; 'verbal abuse' is more likely to be aimed at people: personal abuse.

Maybe it's the difference between ad rem and ad hominem. But even when people make comments which are completely contemptible, one should of course always keep to the topic, and not abuse that person personally, no matter how shallow and cretinous their comments may be.

So I suppose, very roughly, 'offence' is quite permissible, but 'verbal abuse' may not be.

What's your take on it ?

Joe