La Mauviette75

Members
  • Content count

    1,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

440 Excellent

About La Mauviette75

  • Rank
    Canucks Prospect

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. Not a big fan of Blount off the field. Someone in the crowd threw the Tshirt at him, he had some fun with it, it was out of line. boohoo, whatever. he apologized and he said he respected Lynch afterwards.
  2. LOL at seahawks fans complaining about the patriots parade. Your team is literally notorious throughout the league for trash talking and taunting. What did you think was going to happen? Whining about Edelman with the Sherman picture? You mean the same guy who jumped in Tom Brady’s face screaming at him last time they played? Then later on tweeted “U MAD BRO?” with the picture of him doing that? The guy who last year tweeted pics of his ring at Patrick Patterson? The guy flashing signs to the camera after the go ahead TD? The guy taunting Revis with the 2--4 sign?Seriously what did you think was going to happen? he brought that upon himself. Honestly, when you trash talk so much and it blows up in your face, you can't turn around and whine when the other team dishes it back. too funny. coming from a team that acted like big babies and started a brawl with seconds left in the game, and whose player mimicked pooping on the field. get out of here. You lost, they won, stop being whiners, it's pathetic.
  3. Woo! Another banner year! Hopefully the snow clears before the parade Wednesday!
  4. Good matchup and good venue. Definitely better than baseball stadiums where the sight lines are all messed up.
  5. right, there's a big conspiracy to help the Bruins. meanwhile, they are the team with the fewest power play opportunities in the league (18 fewer PPs than even the second fewest on the list, 39 fewer than the median and 59 fewer than the team that has the most). But yeah, you know that league.... always helping the bruins... he has a player safety hearing, lets see what happens before whining (though I'm sure there will be whining regardless of the outcome).
  6. Well fine, but as long as it isn't illegal, it's not an issue. They can be offended. my opinion on being offended matches this comedian's fairly well: http://youtu.be/fHMoDt3nSHs?t=3m40s no one is a "victim" of a cartoon. comparing actual pictures of a young girl (as i understand it [i still don't know about and will not comment on the Ms. Todd case]), to a satire cartoon is kind of a stretch, no?
  7. That's fine though, I embrace your right to mock me, though i'm not sure i understand the humor, but that's totally fine. right, the cartoons are out there, but they aren't illegal in the jurisdiction they were created in. One actually has to make an effort to see the comics. Ironically, killing these people has propagated cartoons of the prophet more than anything ever before. I do not know much about Ms. Todd's case, so I should not comment on it. The only thing i would say, is that disparaging pictures of a single person, which obviously affect that one person in a very serious way, are different from the image of a person who died more than a thousand years ago, no matter how revered this person might be among a group of people.
  8. What is the "it" I don't get? I think you've explained your opinion quite well, and I'm pretty confident I understand it, though I still disagree with it. The French government doesn't arbitrarily decide things, it makes laws through a democratic legislative process. this process has enacted rules that protect free speech to an extent, but forbid things like holocaust denial, promotion of terrorism, inciting hatred etc.... It's a technicality I guess, but Dieudonné wasn't arrested for what he said, he received a summons for what he said, and he failed to appear at the time he was supposed to, which led to his arrest warrant. Either way, the prosecutor believes that given Dieudonné's anti-Semitic history, his statement that he "feels like [the terrorist who murdered 4 jewish people because they were jewish]" is promoting or celebrating, or justifying what Coulibaly did. I guess you're free to disagree. You say "If you think that you can make fun of people's religious convictions, then don't arrest those who side with terrorists. " . But that's just not what the law says. You don't see the difference between satire, which at worst offends people, and inciting terrorism, which literally aims to incite people to kill others? Obviously there are going to be difficult questions about what kind of speech actually qualifies as inciting or promoting, where is the line etc.... but that's true for most crimes. what is premeditation? what constitutes possession? what's a deadly weapon? these questions are all over the legal system, it's nothing new.
  9. I'm not offended by the article, though I would never be against anyone writing it. but this is actually exactly my point! if muslims are going to be offended by a cartoon, just don't look at it. Out of the past 52 covers of the Charlie Hebdo Magazine, only one had anything to do with Islam.
  10. CDC

    ey, keep your chin up, and i hope all is better soon. it's not weird, it's human.
  11. Um, yeah, like the right to exercise your freedom of speech and freedom of the press. depicting the prophet muhammad in no way impinges on others' rights. which right does drawing mohammad inhibit? there is no right not to be offended. the offended people have the right to be religious, the right to be offended by cartoons and the right to complain about them.
  12. I said I did not see any that advocated violence. As your article says and as I said before, when they stepped outside the lines, they were punished accordingly (as a side note, I no longer live in France). On the Dieudonné issue, I guess we'll see if he actually gets convicted under the promoting of terrorism laws. He also has a history of anti-Semitic statements, so having him now say "i feel like [the terrorist who just murdered four jews because they were jewish]" could be seen as a serious statement, or as a statement of support of Coulibaly's actions, which would also be prohibited under french law. What do you think, given Dieudonné's history and previous statements, was his intent behind the statement? Doesn't really seem like simple satire to me. I guess we'll see what the judge says.
  13. Find a Charlie Hebdo article or cartoon that advocates violence. I personally have not seen any in 18+ years I lived in france. Also, Charlie Hebdo was fined several times for cartoons or articles that were deemed to be outside of acceptable speech.
  14. First, they weren't all arrested, it's just that there were 54 investigations opened: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/apologie-du-terrorisme-54-procedures-ouvertes-depuis-les-attentats-14-01-2015-4446089.php. A procédure judiciaire just means the prosecutor is opening an investigation to see if charges will be brought. Second, freedom of speech doesn't cover inciting/defending terrorism in france.
  15. Maybe in that one instance they did buckle. Once again, I don't think that takes too much away from their decades of challenging the government. They don't "claim to challenge" the government as you say they do... they actually thousand of times before and after this incident, ruthlessly mock the government, the media, celebrities, religious leaders etc... etc... The "random rabbi" and Muhammad both have in common that it's perfectly legal to draw them. They are equally sacred, which is 0% sacred, because france is a secular state. I don't actually even see any indication he's a rabbi btw, he looks to me like any old hasidic jew (which some might argue is more problematic because it might be seen to represent jews in general, or the 'average jew', compared to a single well defined character, but whatever). Also, it's a holocaust joke, which many people might find offensive considering, you know, the millions of people who died. I guess i don't really understand in what way we're disagreeing. So i guess point by point: -Drawing Muhammad is legal in France, even in an offensive way, as long as that offensive way is not intended to incite racism or hatred .it is protected by freedom of speech and freedom of the press -people are allowed to be offended and whine about it. -people are not allowed to firebomb/make death threats/go through with the death threats. So I guess our sticking point might be that you believe that the cartoons do incite racism or hatred and that I don't.