|
Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK |
On May 23 2013 08:30 Holy_AT wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 08:23 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 08:20 Holy_AT wrote:On May 23 2013 08:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever? It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed. Who cares if the act was religiously motivated or not, does not change the fact that religion is still made up by man and people believing in it are delusional. It is the worst stand alone complex that has ever been. The most stupid thing I have seen on this video is the man making an excuse to a woman and justifying that this type of violence happens in his homeland ... What is the message behind this, there are stupid fucks in his homeland and so he is a stupid fuck ? Or that we should get rid of these stupid fucks ? I don't know ... Humans are just humans and will be dead anyway in a few years and in this blink of an eye they call live they still manage to do so much bullshit, it is incredible. If this was some kind of terror attack it is the most stupid and dumbest shit I have ever seen. For all its wrongs, religion does tend to instill some semblance of morals into its followers, which is why a religious man might start understanding his wrongdoing after spending some time incarcerated, whereas a deranged psychopath will probably not. A deranged psychopath might be healed and come to his senses while a religious extremist is blinded by his misguided faith and will never see the essence of things. See what I did here ? A statement like this is as worthless as yours. Fact is and everyone agrees, because at some point you just have to admit that there is no god and you do not have a soul and the rest of the stories that you are being programmed with from childhood on. And I would further like to see someone guided by logic, intelligence, ethics and compassion then by a bullshit made up story with lots of shit in it.
Psychopath cannot be healed or rehabilitated in any way. It is permanent condition.
|
On May 23 2013 09:10 NSGrendel wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 08:53 Rowrin wrote:
Thing is, we don't regularly hear about WBC blowing things up or killing people on almost a weekly basis. They are lunatics, but bunching two different groups of extremists together just because they are extremists doesn't make them equally crazy. Every single part of this statement I disagree with. Can anyone help out? Or do I really need to do a play by play?
Next time WBC kills someone get back to us
|
On May 23 2013 09:15 Scootaloo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 08:23 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 08:20 Holy_AT wrote:On May 23 2013 08:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever? It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed. Who cares if the act was religiously motivated or not, does not change the fact that religion is still made up by man and people believing in it are delusional. It is the worst stand alone complex that has ever been. The most stupid thing I have seen on this video is the man making an excuse to a woman and justifying that this type of violence happens in his homeland ... What is the message behind this, there are stupid fucks in his homeland and so he is a stupid fuck ? Or that we should get rid of these stupid fucks ? I don't know ... Humans are just humans and will be dead anyway in a few years and in this blink of an eye they call live they still manage to do so much bullshit, it is incredible. If this was some kind of terror attack it is the most stupid and dumbest shit I have ever seen. For all its wrongs, religion does tend to instill some semblance of morals into its followers, which is why a religious man might start understanding his wrongdoing after spending some time incarcerated, whereas a deranged psychopath will probably not. Can't say I agree, simple logic dictates that most deranged psychopaths are actually religious, the countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious, while an flourishing atheist community usually indicates a more civilized society, not to mention that atheists are on average better educated then religious people, which helps an awful lot in actually understanding morality. Nietzsche is often misrepresented by those with an agenda, the absence of a god does not mean morality is void, it is a core principle of what makes us human, and we should guard it because if we don't we lose possibly the greatest human achievement. What morality is often considered to be he had issues with, mostly the parts that are leftovers from outdated cultural or religious traditions.
There's just so much wrong with this post. And this is coming from a (non-militant) atheist.
Simple logic dictates that most psychopaths are religious because last I checked the overwhelming amount of people on this earth are religious.
And I would looove some sources on that "atheists are smarter" and especially the "countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious" thing because last I checked Germany wasn't deeply religious in the 1940s and North Korea isn't right now.
Religion served (and you can make a case that it still does now) as a very good source when facing a moral or ethical dilemma. You must be delusional to argue that. Whether everybody necessarily needs religion to answer those dilemmas is a different question. I don't, but that doesn't mean I condemn religious people because to them their faith is actually useful.
|
United States41957 Posts
End the religion vs atheism argument in PMs.
|
Where I live, Chicago, children get shot on an almost regular basis, simply from random stray bullets and such. Random killings everyday. Granted there is a political/religious element to this particular killing, but in a major city, it is weird to see a single killing receive this kind of sensational attention.
A lot of murders have political agendas to them, we shouldn't call them acts of terrorism. With the "War on Terror", we're creating a de-facto faction for anyone who wants to kill in the name of their beliefs. By calling these guys terrorists, we're giving them a place, a cause, and a purpose, and are essentially giving them what they want. This is brutal, senseless, baseless violence, why give it more credit than that?
|
On May 23 2013 09:24 Mandalor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:15 Scootaloo wrote:On May 23 2013 08:23 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 08:20 Holy_AT wrote:On May 23 2013 08:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever? It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed. Who cares if the act was religiously motivated or not, does not change the fact that religion is still made up by man and people believing in it are delusional. It is the worst stand alone complex that has ever been. The most stupid thing I have seen on this video is the man making an excuse to a woman and justifying that this type of violence happens in his homeland ... What is the message behind this, there are stupid fucks in his homeland and so he is a stupid fuck ? Or that we should get rid of these stupid fucks ? I don't know ... Humans are just humans and will be dead anyway in a few years and in this blink of an eye they call live they still manage to do so much bullshit, it is incredible. If this was some kind of terror attack it is the most stupid and dumbest shit I have ever seen. For all its wrongs, religion does tend to instill some semblance of morals into its followers, which is why a religious man might start understanding his wrongdoing after spending some time incarcerated, whereas a deranged psychopath will probably not. Can't say I agree, simple logic dictates that most deranged psychopaths are actually religious, the countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious, while an flourishing atheist community usually indicates a more civilized society, not to mention that atheists are on average better educated then religious people, which helps an awful lot in actually understanding morality. Nietzsche is often misrepresented by those with an agenda, the absence of a god does not mean morality is void, it is a core principle of what makes us human, and we should guard it because if we don't we lose possibly the greatest human achievement. What morality is often considered to be he had issues with, mostly the parts that are leftovers from outdated cultural or religious traditions. There's just so much wrong with this post. And this is coming from a (non-militant) atheist. Simple logic dictates that most psychopaths are religious because last I checked the overwhelming amount of people on this earth are religious. And I would looove some sources on that "atheists are smarter" and especially the "countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious" thing because last I checked Germany wasn't deeply religious in the 1940s and North Korea isn't right now. Religion served (and you can make a case that it still does now) as a very good source when facing a moral or ethical dilemma. You must be delusional to argue that. Whether everybody necessarily needs religion to answer those dilemmas is a different question. I don't, but that doesn't mean I condemn religious people because to them their faith is actually useful.
Just as a point, Christianity was central to Hitler's push of moral superiority - his publicly stated morals were in line with those of the Bible particularly the persecution of Jews and homosexuals. North Korea does have a religion - in fact it even has a God Emperor who rebirths himself in his son. The fact that their central religion appears to be a huge personality cult doesn't mean that the situation is not religious.
As for the statistical crap, that's for another thread. Not sure what's going to happen in this situation - while I feel for the soldier and their family in this situation, I am more worried about what the government is going to use this horrible event as an excuse for.
|
sick people 
did the cops arrested him? where are the cops?
|
|
|
On May 23 2013 03:26 HaRuHi wrote:
So random guy kills guy that is paid to kill. What an outrage...
User was warned for this post
You have a point
|
damn that's crazy, waited for the police and all
|
really disturbed by the girl lying next to the body. the fuck is that.
|
On May 23 2013 09:40 5unrise wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 03:26 HaRuHi wrote:
So random guy kills guy that is paid to kill. What an outrage...
User was warned for this post You have a point
no he doesnt. if you think warfare is the same as murder you might want to do some reading up...
On May 23 2013 09:34 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:24 Mandalor wrote:On May 23 2013 09:15 Scootaloo wrote:On May 23 2013 08:23 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 08:20 Holy_AT wrote:On May 23 2013 08:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever? It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed. Who cares if the act was religiously motivated or not, does not change the fact that religion is still made up by man and people believing in it are delusional. It is the worst stand alone complex that has ever been. The most stupid thing I have seen on this video is the man making an excuse to a woman and justifying that this type of violence happens in his homeland ... What is the message behind this, there are stupid fucks in his homeland and so he is a stupid fuck ? Or that we should get rid of these stupid fucks ? I don't know ... Humans are just humans and will be dead anyway in a few years and in this blink of an eye they call live they still manage to do so much bullshit, it is incredible. If this was some kind of terror attack it is the most stupid and dumbest shit I have ever seen. For all its wrongs, religion does tend to instill some semblance of morals into its followers, which is why a religious man might start understanding his wrongdoing after spending some time incarcerated, whereas a deranged psychopath will probably not. Can't say I agree, simple logic dictates that most deranged psychopaths are actually religious, the countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious, while an flourishing atheist community usually indicates a more civilized society, not to mention that atheists are on average better educated then religious people, which helps an awful lot in actually understanding morality. Nietzsche is often misrepresented by those with an agenda, the absence of a god does not mean morality is void, it is a core principle of what makes us human, and we should guard it because if we don't we lose possibly the greatest human achievement. What morality is often considered to be he had issues with, mostly the parts that are leftovers from outdated cultural or religious traditions. There's just so much wrong with this post. And this is coming from a (non-militant) atheist. Simple logic dictates that most psychopaths are religious because last I checked the overwhelming amount of people on this earth are religious. And I would looove some sources on that "atheists are smarter" and especially the "countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious" thing because last I checked Germany wasn't deeply religious in the 1940s and North Korea isn't right now. Religion served (and you can make a case that it still does now) as a very good source when facing a moral or ethical dilemma. You must be delusional to argue that. Whether everybody necessarily needs religion to answer those dilemmas is a different question. I don't, but that doesn't mean I condemn religious people because to them their faith is actually useful. Just as a point, Christianity was central to Hitler's push of moral superiority - his publicly stated morals were in line with those of the Bible particularly the persecution of Jews and homosexuals. North Korea does have a religion - in fact it even has a God Emperor who rebirths himself in his son. The fact that their central religion appears to be a huge personality cult doesn't mean that the situation is not religious. As for the statistical crap, that's for another thread. Not sure what's going to happen in this situation - while I feel for the soldier and their family in this situation, I am more worried about what the government is going to use this horrible event as an excuse for.
christianity served as a useful tool to appear moral. nothing more than that. but since this thread is now about hitler we are done i guess.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 23 2013 10:16 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:40 5unrise wrote:On May 23 2013 03:26 HaRuHi wrote:
So random guy kills guy that is paid to kill. What an outrage...
User was warned for this post You have a point no he doesnt. if you think warfare is the same as murder you might want to do some reading up...
Warfare isn't really what happens in the Middle East, there are a lot of innocent people killed every day by troops there, or at least there used to be. The guys responsible for this openly admitted that it was because they were "fed up" with the killing of people in Afghanistan.
|
On May 23 2013 09:33 Leporello wrote:
Where I live, Chicago, children get shot on an almost regular basis, simply from random stray bullets and such. Random killings everyday. Granted there is a political/religious element to this particular killing, but in a major city, it is weird to see a single killing receive this kind of sensational attention.
A lot of murders have political agendas to them, we shouldn't call them acts of terrorism. With the "War on Terror", we're creating a de-facto faction for anyone who wants to kill in the name of their beliefs. By calling these guys terrorists, we're giving them a place, a cause, and a purpose, and are essentially giving them what they want. This is brutal, senseless, baseless violence, why give it more credit than that?
I must point out that murders with political agendas are, by conventional definition, acts of terrorism. Terrorism is a means to the end of political power and serves as an alternative to other means, such as the democratic process. That said, I agree that media outlets should not blow this out of proportion, because that's what the suspects want.
Warfare isn't really what happens in the Middle East, there are a lot of innocent people killed every day by troops there, or at least there used to be. The guys responsible for this openly admitted that it was because they were "fed up" with the killing of people in Afghanistan.
Your statement is vague. If you are referring to ISAF occupation of Afghanistan, then you are incorrect, since this is legitimate warfare.
|
United States41957 Posts
I don't approve of the killing of a British soldier, nor with the point behind it, nor with the religious teachings he believed justified it. I also think this will have the opposite of his desired effect, it will harden public opinion against the unknown and the outsiders, in particular Islam. However his point about the British public not understanding the reality the ongoing conflicts their governments started because they don't see the blood, that's true. Likewise his targeting of a soldier means he's targeting someone complicit in the conflicts, although Blair would have been more appropriate. I think we'd be a lot less willing to wage war if we understood the reality of what that decision meant for the people living there, it's far removed from our streets and our lives and we never get to see the blood.
Well, he showed us the blood but rather than doing it with yet another documentary (which have a limited viewerbase and impact) he chose to put a British casualty on youtube. In a sad way it was probably inevitable, what's worse is that rather than harden the public against having death anyone's streets it'll probably encourage more support of putting death on other people's streets.
|
On May 23 2013 09:34 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:24 Mandalor wrote:On May 23 2013 09:15 Scootaloo wrote:On May 23 2013 08:23 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 08:20 Holy_AT wrote:On May 23 2013 08:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On May 23 2013 07:52 Rokit5 wrote:On May 23 2013 03:32 AnomalySC2 wrote:
They should be executed in the most painful manner possible. No! imprisoned for life. That is a way, way harder punishment. But is it, really? Think about it, they get free food and housing for the rest of their lives supported by the taxpayers of the very community that their crimes damaged. Is that really worse than dying? Especially if we consider the option that they weren't in fact religious extremists, but insane lunatics who may or may not feel any remorse whatsoever? It's tricky. There's a realistic standpoint to this notion, not just a purely moral-based one, and both should be considered and weighed. Who cares if the act was religiously motivated or not, does not change the fact that religion is still made up by man and people believing in it are delusional. It is the worst stand alone complex that has ever been. The most stupid thing I have seen on this video is the man making an excuse to a woman and justifying that this type of violence happens in his homeland ... What is the message behind this, there are stupid fucks in his homeland and so he is a stupid fuck ? Or that we should get rid of these stupid fucks ? I don't know ... Humans are just humans and will be dead anyway in a few years and in this blink of an eye they call live they still manage to do so much bullshit, it is incredible. If this was some kind of terror attack it is the most stupid and dumbest shit I have ever seen. For all its wrongs, religion does tend to instill some semblance of morals into its followers, which is why a religious man might start understanding his wrongdoing after spending some time incarcerated, whereas a deranged psychopath will probably not. Can't say I agree, simple logic dictates that most deranged psychopaths are actually religious, the countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious, while an flourishing atheist community usually indicates a more civilized society, not to mention that atheists are on average better educated then religious people, which helps an awful lot in actually understanding morality. Nietzsche is often misrepresented by those with an agenda, the absence of a god does not mean morality is void, it is a core principle of what makes us human, and we should guard it because if we don't we lose possibly the greatest human achievement. What morality is often considered to be he had issues with, mostly the parts that are leftovers from outdated cultural or religious traditions. There's just so much wrong with this post. And this is coming from a (non-militant) atheist. Simple logic dictates that most psychopaths are religious because last I checked the overwhelming amount of people on this earth are religious. And I would looove some sources on that "atheists are smarter" and especially the "countries that have the most atrocities commited tend to be deeply religious" thing because last I checked Germany wasn't deeply religious in the 1940s and North Korea isn't right now. Religion served (and you can make a case that it still does now) as a very good source when facing a moral or ethical dilemma. You must be delusional to argue that. Whether everybody necessarily needs religion to answer those dilemmas is a different question. I don't, but that doesn't mean I condemn religious people because to them their faith is actually useful. Just as a point, Christianity was central to Hitler's push of moral superiority - his publicly stated morals were in line with those of the Bible particularly the persecution of Jews and homosexuals. North Korea does have a religion - in fact it even has a God Emperor who rebirths himself in his son. The fact that their central religion appears to be a huge personality cult doesn't mean that the situation is not religious. As for the statistical crap, that's for another thread. Not sure what's going to happen in this situation - while I feel for the soldier and their family in this situation, I am more worried about what the government is going to use this horrible event as an excuse for.
it definitely wasnt central. And then there are Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, all the other communist bretheren.
Christianity, and Islam, and most other religions are religions of peace. Helping fellow men is the central message. Love thy neighbor, dont judge; all that crap.
People are just rotten, and elect to follow the bits which would help them explain how theyre better than everyone else.
If it isn't religion, it would be skin color, country of origin, length of their cock.
hell, when i was younger growing up in the Soviet Union we had fights of neighborhood vs neighborhood(some of which are still going on in certain regions and are easily accessible on youtube).
And I mean you r/atheism fucks think that youre superior to everyone else because you dont believe.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On May 23 2013 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:
Your statement is vague. If you are referring to ISAF occupation of Afghanistan, then you are incorrect, since this is legitimate warfare.
You misunderstand. The war in Afghanistan is not conventional warfare in the sense that there are two clear armies fighting each other. It is a war of insurgency, and there are a lot of innocent people who die whether intended or not by the ISAF forces as a result of their attempts of clearing out the insurgents.
I have no doubts as to the conflicts' legitimacy. But to deny the large volume of innocent death which is the apparent reason for this attack is just foolish.
|
On May 23 2013 10:16 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 09:40 5unrise wrote:On May 23 2013 03:26 HaRuHi wrote:
So random guy kills guy that is paid to kill. What an outrage...
User was warned for this post You have a point no he doesnt. if you think warfare is the same as murder you might want to do some reading up...
I think that's a matter of opinion whether you amke a distinction between killing in war and killing someone you don't like. You are still a killer, and if you live by the sword... you get the rest.
|
On May 23 2013 10:32 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:
Your statement is vague. If you are referring to ISAF occupation of Afghanistan, then you are incorrect, since this is legitimate warfare. You misunderstand. The war in Afghanistan is not conventional warfare in the sense that there are two clear armies fighting each other. It is a war of insurgency, and there are a lot of innocent people who die whether intended or not by the ISAF forces as a result of their attempts of clearing out the insurgents. I have no doubts as to the conflicts' legitimacy. But to deny the large volume of innocent death which is the apparent reason for this attack is just foolish.
Well, if those deaths motivated the attack, then it is unfortunate that the subjects chose such a crude manner to voice their disapproval, especially since, as others have pointed out, their method is even less effective than traditional methods of voicing disapproval such as through protests and boycotts.
I think that's a matter of opinion whether you amke a distinction between killing in war and killing someone you don't like. You are still a killer, and if you live by the sword... you get the rest.
It's not just opinion when it is a legal matter. As far as opinion goes, if you agree that authority is vested in governments by individuals (as far as Western democracies are concerned), then by extension you must agree that killing in war is distinct from killing someone outside of war, because those who kill in war (assuming they follow proper procedure) are acting as agents of the government, which is entitled to the legitimate exercise of violence.
|
On May 23 2013 10:35 Warlock40 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2013 10:32 Larkin wrote:On May 23 2013 10:26 Warlock40 wrote:
Your statement is vague. If you are referring to ISAF occupation of Afghanistan, then you are incorrect, since this is legitimate warfare. You misunderstand. The war in Afghanistan is not conventional warfare in the sense that there are two clear armies fighting each other. It is a war of insurgency, and there are a lot of innocent people who die whether intended or not by the ISAF forces as a result of their attempts of clearing out the insurgents. I have no doubts as to the conflicts' legitimacy. But to deny the large volume of innocent death which is the apparent reason for this attack is just foolish. Well, if those deaths motivated the attack, then it is unfortunate that the subjects chose such a crude manner to voice their disapproval, especially since, as others have pointed out, their method is even less effective than traditional methods of voicing disapproval such as through protests and boycotts.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. No more unfortunate than it is for the soldier's friends and family, and the law abiding citizens of the Muslim community who will feel the repercussions.
Not that protests in the UK work. Tuition fees anyone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
