|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States42694 Posts
On November 25 2015 07:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:45 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:33 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees? This kind of equivocal analysis serves no purpose other than to give Muslims cover for the high incidence of radicalism within their ranks. Regardless, we're centuries removed from European wars being fought for religious reasons. Why do you think those wars stopped? We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state. A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing. It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here. You'd have to come up with some obscure shit to characterize WW2 as a religious struggle. Nationalism has been the driving force of European politics for centuries. Religion hasn't been in the driver's seat of Europe since the Seventeenth Century. Fortunately I referred explicitly to the Holocaust. However if we're going to debate this I also believe that Stalinism more closely models a religious theocracy than anything else. It was built on the denial of reality in favour of faith, while it claimed to be atheistic it replaced the old Orthodox structures with new Stalinist structures and pushed devotion and faith over critical analysis. Also, like both Islam and Christianity, it was explicitly expansionist. The largest and most brutal front of the Second World War cannot be separated from the ideology that dominated it. The Holocaust wasn't about religious struggle. Hitler detested all religion. He was just particularly bigoted against the Jews as a race. If anything, the Holocaust was the ultimate expression of nationalism: the purification of the master race. And it is hilarious that you would characterize Stalinism as a religion. Sure, the cult of personality that was part of Stalinism certainly resembles religion, but the fact remains that Stalinism (and communism) are strictly secular. So no, WW2 clearly was not about religion.
What would you define as religion? For me it the defining factor is the subjugation of evidence and analysis in pursuit of a greater truth obtained through revelation and followed through faith alone. Stalinism qualifies. Again, read the confessions of Stalin's victims. They were true believers. While they knew they hadn't done what they were accused of they also had faith that they must be guilty.
Also dismissing religion from European Antisemitism and arguing it was about race is absurd. The Jewish diaspora happened under Titus, the German Jews were as German as anyone else. If the German purity laws were traced back every German, and indeed most likely every human, would be Jewish. You cannot separate Antisemitism from religion, try as you might.
|
On November 25 2015 08:01 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:50 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:45 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:33 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees? This kind of equivocal analysis serves no purpose other than to give Muslims cover for the high incidence of radicalism within their ranks. Regardless, we're centuries removed from European wars being fought for religious reasons. Why do you think those wars stopped? We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state. A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing. It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here. You'd have to come up with some obscure shit to characterize WW2 as a religious struggle. Nationalism has been the driving force of European politics for centuries. Religion hasn't been in the driver's seat of Europe since the Seventeenth Century. Fortunately I referred explicitly to the Holocaust. However if we're going to debate this I also believe that Stalinism more closely models a religious theocracy than anything else. It was built on the denial of reality in favour of faith, while it claimed to be atheistic it replaced the old Orthodox structures with new Stalinist structures and pushed devotion and faith over critical analysis. Also, like both Islam and Christianity, it was explicitly expansionist. The largest and most brutal front of the Second World War cannot be separated from the ideology that dominated it. The Holocaust wasn't about religious struggle. Hitler detested all religion. He was just particularly bigoted against the Jews as a race. If anything, the Holocaust was the ultimate expression of nationalism: the purification of the master race. And it is hilarious that you would characterize Stalinism as a religion. Sure, the cult of personality that was part of Stalinism certainly resembles religion, but the fact remains that Stalinism (and communism) are strictly secular. So no, WW2 clearly was not about religion. What would you define as religion? For me it the defining factor is the subjugation of evidence and analysis in pursuit of a greater truth obtained through revelation and followed through faith alone. Stalinism qualifies. Again, read the confessions of Stalin's victims. They were true believers. While they knew they hadn't done what they were accused of they also had faith that they must be guilty. Also dismissing religion from European Antisemitism and arguing it was about race is absurd. The Jewish diaspora happened under Titus, the German Jews were as German as anyone else. If the German purity laws were traced back every German, and indeed most likely every human, would be Jewish. You cannot separate Antisemitism from religion, try as you might.
Yeah, and here's where your argument goes off the rails. If everything can be a religion, then nothing is.
And while you can trace the origins of anti-semitism to religious differences, Hitler made it very clear what the Holocaust was all about (hint: not religion).
|
United States42694 Posts
On November 25 2015 08:01 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:46 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:44 Deathstar wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. Islam jihadis are a problem in Africa what are you talking about. Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other groups operate there. It's not all about oil. So are Christian fanatics. And a strong history of ethnic warfare as well. Africa has a lot of poor, impoverished nations where fanaticism thrives. Its not specifically about Islam. I'm not saying Islam is specifically the problem in Africa. Africa has many natural resources and is full of conflict, and Islamic terrorism is prevalent throughout the continent (at least greater Africa). Show nested quote +The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. There is no reason to bring in militant Christianity into this.The impact of Christian terror is irrelevant compared to Islamic terror.
Because the places we've been fucking with are filled with Muslims, not because Muslims are intrinsically predisposed to wearing bomb vests. Hell, Anglican England fucked with Catholic Ireland and the bombs aren't even history yet, the Real IRA is still fighting the good fight.
People who put a truth obtained through revelation and adherence to faith ahead of common sense and logic seem more likely to blow shit up when you fuck with them. Fucking with the Middle East, seeing a bunch of Muslims blow shit up and then going "clearly Muslims are predisposed to terrorism" is nothing but selection bias. It's plain unscientific. You need a control group. When we have a long, long, long history of non Muslims reacting in the same way as Muslims it's fairly clear to me that more evidence is needed. Invade Mexico and see if people who happen to be Catholics resist. If so we can add another datapoint.
|
United States42694 Posts
On November 25 2015 08:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 08:01 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:50 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:45 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:39 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 07:33 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:22 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 06:58 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 06:27 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2015 05:00 oneofthem wrote:
idk what you mean by equivocation there.
if you are asking me to criticize the religion i don't have enough knowledge to do so but sure i support the possibility of analysis and criticism in that area. would there be much less radicalization if they were all buddhists or whatever. sure, but you don't really have to go that far to be tolerated.
I'm not asking for criticism of the religion so much as I am asking for a willingness to recognize and acknowledge that the religion is part of the problem. There's a lot of ideological real estate between recognizing the role that religion plays in Muslim extremism and outright anti-Muslim fearmongering. It bothers me that this issue has become so polarized that intelligent discussion of it can barely be had. Honestly they all look the same from up here on my atheist pedestal. That's what gets me about the anti-Islam Christians. I mean sure, Quakers are really into pacifism and ISIS are really into beheading but I think those are more cultural differences than religious. Christianity has gone through militant phases and Islam has had laid back almost secular phases. We are currently in a world where western Christianity exists in a predominantly secular and moderate culture, although it wasn't so long ago that Christian nations tore Europe apart and gassed their old enemy. If you judge them by the actions of the believers then only real difference between Islam and Christianity is historical context. Humans from both sides have done dumb things for dumb reasons. Sure, one was founded by a carpenter who wants everyone to get along and the other a warlord who wants everyone to do what he says but the actual content of the religion is barely relevant to the practice of it. Religion just lets you do whatever you wanted to do anyway, but with more passion. I'm happy when people love their neighbour, I just wish they weren't doing it because they feel they have to due to their interpretation of the carpenter. They'd just one, albeit pretty extreme, reinterpretation away from ISIS. If the ruling body says "as long as they pay their taxes I don't care how they practice their religion" you may be in the 11th C Islamic Middle East or 18th C Christian America. If the ruling body is murdering people who won't convert you may be in the 12th C Christian Middle East or the 20th C Islamic Middle East. If it's mutilating women then you may be in the 20th C Islamic Africa or also the 20th C Christian Africa. Don't get me wrong, I agree that a religion that provides an excuse for people to go out and do all the fucked up things they want to do is a problem. I'm 110% behind that. It's just when you say you want to recognize that the religion is a part of the problem my response is "great, which one". Let's put this another way. Would you rather have Syrian Muslim refugees or Christian sub-Saharan African refugees? This kind of equivocal analysis serves no purpose other than to give Muslims cover for the high incidence of radicalism within their ranks. Regardless, we're centuries removed from European wars being fought for religious reasons. Why do you think those wars stopped? We're not centuries removed from the Second World War and you need to read up on your history if you think religion played no part in why people fought. Hell, there is a fucking amazing speech by Patton quoted in Rick Atkinson's very good Liberation Trilogy in which Patton explains at length that the Germans all worship Wotan and it is the Christian duty of the American people to exterminate them. I'd quote it at length because everyone deserves to read it but I'm at work and my books are at home. Separating religion from European Antisemitism takes some doing too. And let's not forget the cult of Stalinism, faith, sacrifice and devotion to the "real" truth as opposed to the more mundane truth as revealed by the senses were all key components of Soviet Russia. Read the confessions of Stalin's victims as they explain that although they never committed any acts of treason they acknowledge that they cannot be anything other than enemies of the state. A Muslim born in a middle class American household is probably fine (or at least more likely to shoot up a school for the usual reasons). A Christian born in war torn Africa is probably also fine because most people turn out fine but I'd want him screened before inviting him over for tea because the LRA is a real thing. It's not equivocation, if a religious guy turns out to be a valuable member of society they do it due to the civilizing influence secular society has on them. You all look the same from up here. You'd have to come up with some obscure shit to characterize WW2 as a religious struggle. Nationalism has been the driving force of European politics for centuries. Religion hasn't been in the driver's seat of Europe since the Seventeenth Century. Fortunately I referred explicitly to the Holocaust. However if we're going to debate this I also believe that Stalinism more closely models a religious theocracy than anything else. It was built on the denial of reality in favour of faith, while it claimed to be atheistic it replaced the old Orthodox structures with new Stalinist structures and pushed devotion and faith over critical analysis. Also, like both Islam and Christianity, it was explicitly expansionist. The largest and most brutal front of the Second World War cannot be separated from the ideology that dominated it. The Holocaust wasn't about religious struggle. Hitler detested all religion. He was just particularly bigoted against the Jews as a race. If anything, the Holocaust was the ultimate expression of nationalism: the purification of the master race. And it is hilarious that you would characterize Stalinism as a religion. Sure, the cult of personality that was part of Stalinism certainly resembles religion, but the fact remains that Stalinism (and communism) are strictly secular. So no, WW2 clearly was not about religion. What would you define as religion? For me it the defining factor is the subjugation of evidence and analysis in pursuit of a greater truth obtained through revelation and followed through faith alone. Stalinism qualifies. Again, read the confessions of Stalin's victims. They were true believers. While they knew they hadn't done what they were accused of they also had faith that they must be guilty. Also dismissing religion from European Antisemitism and arguing it was about race is absurd. The Jewish diaspora happened under Titus, the German Jews were as German as anyone else. If the German purity laws were traced back every German, and indeed most likely every human, would be Jewish. You cannot separate Antisemitism from religion, try as you might. Yeah, and here's where your argument goes off the rails. If everything can be a religion, then nothing is. And while you can trace the origins of anti-semitism to religious differences, Hitler made it very clear what the Holocaust was all about (hint: not religion).
If Scientology gets to be a religion then nothing is. :p
But sure, if we disagree about what is and is not a religion then we'll disagree on the implications of that. Soviets sure as hell weren't interested in rational analysis or criticizing things that didn't work though. The texts they deemed sacred were deemed to contain a real truth purer than any that could be found through mere observation. I assume you'll agree with those points, even if you disagree with what I think they mean.
|
Scientology is only a religion due to bombing the IRS with lawsuits.
|
On November 25 2015 08:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 07:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so. I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though. The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era.
They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds.
I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion.
|
On November 25 2015 08:15 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 08:01 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so. I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though. The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era. They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion.
Yes, but its isn't one that we, as non-Muslims, can prescribe to them. Any attempts to do that will end in abject failure. Reform and change cant happen during war, under repressive dictatorships and in impoverished nations.
|
On November 25 2015 08:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 08:15 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 08:01 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so. I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though. The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era. They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion. Yes, but its isn't one that we, as non-Muslims, can prescribe to them. Any attempts to do that will end in abject failure. Reform and change cant happen during war, under repressive dictatorships and in impoverished nations.
I can certainly agree with you here. That being said, we will be implied, in a way or another, because we probably don't want them to give themselve any system, or we can let IS do whatever they want, and also because jihadism is in great part built against the western world. They want to fight us, and so we will have to fight them.
How can we surmount that contradiction, what are our goals and objectives (and they can't only be negative), what strategy, those questions are among the difficult ones I believe we are refusing to face.
|
Just FYI to whoever posts the Laquan McDonald video it may be removed but tag it as NSFW regardless.
|
On November 25 2015 08:15 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 08:01 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so. I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though. The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era. They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion.
On November 25 2015 08:27 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 08:20 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 08:15 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 08:01 Plansix wrote:On November 25 2015 07:56 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:55 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:49 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 25 2015 07:37 KwarK wrote:On November 25 2015 07:28 corumjhaelen wrote:
I agree with xDaunt here, at least in the following sense. We today are in a specific conflict, and it is clear that our opposants objectives and to a lesser degree methods have to do with their specific religion, or rather their interpretation of it. I think the jihadist movement is in great part political, and that Islam specificities toward political organisations play a role in the way that political struggle unfolds as a war. Refusing to see jihadism as something specific to islam will lead us nowhere. But using the fact that jihadism has to do with Islam to blame muslim indiscriminately might prove to be even more counterproductive. Sure, Islam is a religion that tells people to ignore their conscience, basic morality and reason and carry out acts in the name of God because God's commands transcend all that normal bullshit. In short, it's like every other religion. Don't get me wrong, the one with the peaceful socialist carpenter has a better starting point than the one with the Arab warlord but the actual text of the religion isn't what dictates most religious practice. Religious practice is dictated by personal interpretation and personal interpretation means "do whatever the hell you want because faith". The reason militant Islam is the problem is because the Middle East is full of oil and conflict. If the right parts of Africa were full of oil and conflict then militant Christianity would be the problem. If which religion is the problem changes depending upon where on the globe you're looking then it's probably not an isolated problem. This is utterly irrelevant to my point. Fighting against Islam or against the Catholic Church is not the same thing, not because the religious of the second sort can't be as bloody as the first, but because their objective couldn't be the same, as both religion have throughout their history absorbed quite different political models. Nur Al Dîn and the first caliphs are not the same as Constantine or Urban II, and jihadists refer to the firsts and not the seconds. As simply as I can : 1) Jihadists have religious revendications 2) Their religion is (a specific kind of) Islam. 3) Therefore if we are to undestand jihadism (and to fight it I'm convinced we have too), we have to accept that Islam is part of the equation. The Catholic church has a history as bloody as that of ISIS. Possibly more so. I know and I think it's irrelevant. Keep on not reading me though. The point that Kwark is trying to make is that the issues facing the Catholic Church back its most violent era are the same ones Islam faces now. You are correct that Islam is connected to the issue, but no more than Christianity was an issue back in its most violent era. They might be similar, but they are not the same, historical circumstances are obviously different in the sense of the most obvious truism ever. Moreover, historic analogies have to be a bit more precise than this sort of thing if you wan't them to be useful. What is similar, what is different, that is the question. And certainly the set of beliefs of either religion, which are different, albeit similar in some ways, change something to the way the conflict unfolds. I mean, it's pretty obvious, but the point is that a peaceful Midde East implies that the religious aspirations of most muslims in the area are satisfied, and I don't think copy pasting our long searched solutions (hoping they are not temporary) over there will work. A political solution will have to include something about religion. Yes, but its isn't one that we, as non-Muslims, can prescribe to them. Any attempts to do that will end in abject failure. Reform and change cant happen during war, under repressive dictatorships and in impoverished nations. I can certainly agree with you here. That being said, we will be implied, in a way or another, because we probably don't want them to give themselve any system, or we can let IS do whatever they want, and also because jihadism is in great part built against the western world. They want to fight us, and so we will have to fight them. How can we surmount that contradiction, what are our goals and objectives (and they can't only be negative), what strategy, those questions are among the difficult ones I believe we are refusing to face.
Geez.... are you trying to fill the word requirement by jam in as many high school rhetoric as possible? There are constructive arguments and there are argument for argument's sake, and it's pretty obvious which are which.
|
On November 25 2015 08:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just FYI to whoever posts the Laquan McDonald video it may be removed but tag it as NSFW regardless.
The bit I've seen is already terrible. That it took a year for charges and the prosecutor says it's directly related to the video going public, and all the other crap with this case this is absolutely terrible and that the Mayor stood with the top cop and said he hadn't even watched it yet makes this whole thing stinks to all hell.
|
Yeah in that video it looked like they had him contained...no civilians were close, he wasn't walking toward any officers, they just shot him for no reason. 16 shots, and he fell fast, so most of those, including the shot in his head, happened when he was not moving on the ground...
|
On November 25 2015 08:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Just FYI to whoever posts the Laquan McDonald video it may be removed but tag it as NSFW regardless.
Just watched the video. The kid was walking in the middle of the street with a knife drawn, which is just stupid, but he certainly didn't make a move to attack the cops. If anything, he was walking away. I wonder what the Chicago police are trained to do in that situation. Shooting the kid doesn't seem like a good idea, but you can't let him walk around and menace the public like he apparently was doing before the shooting.
And continuing to shoot him on the ground after he was dropped was just gratuitous.
|
I wonder what the Chicago police are trained to do in that situation. Shooting the kid doesn't seem like a good idea, but you can't let him walk around and menace the public like he apparently was doing before the shooting.
One would think that would be cited as justification, not that "i felt my life and that of fellow officers was totally threatened so i thought i better unload a whole fucking clip in someone already down".
edit: but as usual, a thing that i ask every single time this happens: why exactly are tazers considered "not enough" in situations like these?
|
United States42694 Posts
On November 25 2015 09:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I wonder what the Chicago police are trained to do in that situation. Shooting the kid doesn't seem like a good idea, but you can't let him walk around and menace the public like he apparently was doing before the shooting. One would think that would be cited as justification, not that "i felt my life and that of fellow officers was totally threatened so i thought i better unload a whole fucking clip in someone already down".
Tasers tho. Or getting riot gear and a dozen officers and surrounding him and beating him down if needed. Or a police dog. Sure he may stab the dog but you can bill his family for the cost of a new one. Police dogs are good at knocking people to the ground and taking hands out of action.
I feel like there should be a mandatory "you are about to transfer millions of dollars from the police force to lawyers, do you want to proceed?" alarms on guns. These tragedies cost the police force a fortune and that alone is indefensibly wasteful, even if you think shooting black kids is okay.
|
Firing your whole clip is no different then firing just one expecially with the ammo cops use and the myriad of situations they're in.
In a better town the cops would have tazers it used any amount of less than lethal equipment that we all know they have. Having one cop cover the other while he gets the shotgun from the trunk is basic training.
Keep in mind tazers are the new thing today but cops have had beanbag shotguns for decades that would do the same trick. It's unrealistic to negligent if they don't have training and policy to do that more now after recent events.
|
As a thread of how this is part of a larger problem, people watched that video (and witnessed it live) and it took until now (a year later) for him to stop getting paid . That he wasn't immediately arrested speaks volumes.
|
See my edit.
It's just something that immediately springs to mind: "why didn't they use tasers, hell, pepperspray would've done?". According to a lawyer, the last "puff" on the body was 16 seconds after he hit the ground. That's a cop literally pulling the trigger as fast as he can until the gun is empty, on a person that was hit with the first bullet already.
That's pure intention in my book. He wanted that person dead. Doesn't even matter if black or not.
Firing your whole clip is no different then firing just one expecially with the ammo cops use and the myriad of situations they're in.
That's bullshit if i've ever seen some. One bullet can be justified as self defense, even if it kills someone. Shooting for almost 20 seconds into a not moving body on the ground is simply trying to make sure that that person never gets back up again.
|
On November 25 2015 09:13 m4ini wrote:See my edit. It's just something that immediately springs to mind: "why didn't they use tasers, hell, pepperspray would've done?". According to a lawyer, the last "puff" on the body was 16 seconds after he hit the ground. That's a cop literally pulling the trigger as fast as he can until the gun is empty, on a person that was hit with the first bullet already. That's pure intention in my book. He wanted that person dead. Doesn't even matter if black or not. Show nested quote +Firing your whole clip is no different then firing just one expecially with the ammo cops use and the myriad of situations they're in.
That's bullshit if i've ever seen some. One bullet can be justified as self defense, even if it kills someone. Shooting for almost 20 seconds into a not moving body on the ground is simply trying to make sure that that person never gets back up again.
16 seconds isnt that great for a trained person. But, as per usual one of the myths that people propagate is that cops are actually good at using guns (compared to a concealed carry person). They are trained to empty clips because its assumed they are freaking terrible at shooting, which is true.
|
On November 25 2015 09:13 m4ini wrote:
See my edit.
It's just something that immediately springs to mind: "why didn't they use tasers, hell, pepperspray would've done?". According to a lawyer, the last "puff" on the body was 16 seconds after he hit the ground. That's a cop literally pulling the trigger as fast as he can until the gun is empty, on a person that was hit with the first bullet already.
That's pure intention in my book. He wanted that person dead. Doesn't even matter if black or not.
Devils advocate here a hollow point 9mm won't kill you unless it's a perfect head or heart shot. A jumpy cop will miss 9 times out of 10 unless he's a vet. More then likely it'll be a jaw or rib shot that will kill them regardless but over an extended period of time where he dies in agony until shock sets in. It's as much of a mercy as a protection against methhead and worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
