|
|
Sorry for my english, Im french .
Metaphor times :
+ Show Spoiler +Welcome in the Terran country, some Scvs, Drones, Probes are working together in the main CC, this is good, everyone live together.
Not so far there is the Zerg country,
The zerg country is in trouble times, there is many gas and many overlords want to control them, and the Terran would like some gas too. The Terran care more about gas than Zerg, so they give minerals to some overlords who will help them get gas, if he doesnt he dies. The overlord fight each others, many Drones die.
Eventually Terrans get some Zergs gas, some overlords get lots of minerals, but the Zerg Drones get almost nothing. Sometimes some Drones get angry, they mute to zerglings who revolts against Overlords or Terrans. When they revolt against Overlords, Terrans call them Zerglings of the Zerg Spring, but when they attack Terrans they are call terrorist Zerling. So the Terran drop more Tanks and Marines to have peace. But the Terrorist Zerglings are amongst some peacefull Drones, and thousand of Drones dies of the Splash dommage of the Tank.
Since Drones dies, they are less happy by the "Wing of liberty" episode of the Terran. These Zerg Drones only know of the Terrans, Tanks Marines, and some conditionnal help of the Medic.
Back in the Terran country,
The CC tell to all the Scvs Drones Probes of the Terran country, that Zergs country needs help to be free.
So the humanist Scvs became Marines to save their zergs friends. But lots of Marines dies because some Terrorist Zergling morph into Banelings. Eventually Scvs are unhappy some Zergs kill their honest Marines who want to free them.
And they became uneasy with the community of Terrans Drones, they start to blame them for the action of some Overlords or Baneling against Terrans Marines. Finaly Terran Scvs decides that maybe Zerg are stupid because they worship Kerrigan, who dies 400 years ago. Kerrigan set some rules for the Zergs, this rules were socials hyegenics and politics, they fit the meta game and the map of the zerg community 400 years ago. Since zergs have spread, and lots of this rules have been twisted by many overlords for politics, making the zerg country, for now a trouble nation with many mutations. The Zerg likes Kerrigan because she represent the past unity. Some zerg think she is a divinity and expect some respect for her. I think she was a good, orator, politicians, warrior, humanist ... for the meta 400 years ago.
Some Scvs decides to make fun of Kerrigan, because they dont understand the Zerg, because they are free because they have liberty. Most of Terran Drones are hurt but doesnt mind because they know scvs doesnt really understand. Drones are much more preocupate by the situation of Zerg country and the thousands of their brothers who died of manipulative overlord and Terrans splash damage.
But one day some weaker Terran Larva evolve, they grew up in this messy story, they feel insulted by the Scvs and their use of Kerrigan, because they feel like Terran are responsible for thousands Drones dying in the Zerg country. Because Terrans want Zerg gas. Finnaly this simple minded Terran Larva evolve into 3 Mutalisks and rush 12 humoristic Terran Scvs.
And all the Terran Scvs discover that some Terran Drones are REALY angry, like for real. Terran Scvs discover that they can die for real even if they are very far away from the war that the CC decided for them. And they think that some Drones become killer because of Kerrigan, or because they dont want liberty. So I fear that Scvs think that they need to fight 3 killers Drones(which evolve in muta) amongst thousands of pacific Terran Drones, by making more fun of Kerrigan because they can.
Which has nothing to do with the problem I think.
Not sure if its clear : here is some key words for the stuff I am talking : Sykes–Picot Agreement, Lawrence Of Arabia, European Colonialism, French Colonialism, Algerian war of independence, maghreb immigration, Paris massacre of 1961, french suburbs riots, (racism), 11/09/01, Bush, Afghanistan, Irak, Sarkozy-Kadhafi.
Nobody knows what he is doing. Ignorants killing ignorants, shoking ignorants responding by doing ignorants things.
|
Canada13421 Posts
On January 08 2015 13:02 MrCon wrote:
So yeah, watching iTélé and they're saying a suspect, the 3rd one (the youngest, 18 years old) surrendered because he saw his name in social medias.
He was a SDF (without a place to live) and had stopped school.
He's under arrest but not indicted yet and there are still no official sources, basically they spent 5 minutes talking about him to say they know nothing and perhaps he's innocent and has nothing to do with it.
But, there are a bunch of people saying he was a student and is a student still. His classmates rallying for his innocence.
Maybe there are two guys with the same name and one was released?
So confusing. I really hope this can be sorted well and accurately.
Also, maybe the 18 year old is innocent but remaining in custody for his own safety at this point :/
|
If you have to explain a metaphor its not very good. And that one is cringe worthy. Its a very tragic event, do we really need to use starcraft metaphors?
|
hmm...I read the mod note at the top so I will be sure not to offend anyone, but as far as I know we are allowed to discuss topics related to religion here.
I think its a bit troubling that some people on these forums feel religion can do no harm. If these people were neo-nazis for example, following an ideology that taught them that white people are superior and that the lesser races are damaging the gene pool and should be eliminated (or something like that), I think people would clearly share some sense of unease about what such beliefs are doing to a person's mind, and how it can lead them to become evil, especially if its something they worship every day so that it is a central part of their identity.
There are good and bad parts in Islam. But it seems like people think that those people who worship Islam, and follow the bad parts more than the good, are purely twisted themselves and it has nothing to do with the book itself. Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing some key role in helping recruit terrorists?
Its just extremely hard to believe that religion is completely innocent, or that it can't be brought into the conversation at all - as opposed to any other ideology which we might clearly have problems with, like scientology or neo-nazi beliefs. There are pew research polls from majority muslim countries showing how they are against women's rights, gay rights - strongly correlated with religion. Is it wrong to even point this out? Should we believe that religious texts like the Koran play no role in any negative beliefs - they are always innocent?
I think we really should be learning something from these attacks. Its not that we're letting terrorists "win", we are simply recognizing a fact of reality. I'm 40 pages too late but I have to strongly disagree with GreenHorizons, this is an issue that needs to be addressed somehow. And I think the best way is to try to promote a different interpretation of Islam, but it will be difficult. Its like as Sam Harris said; Christianity has slowly divorced itself from its extremist beliefs; many of the statements in the old testament are either routinely ignored or watered down in some metaphorical form. The same needs to happen with Islam, because a worrying fraction of its adherents are becoming extremists, and they kill people when mere cartoons are published. I think its very clear that this is the reason these people were targeted, because they drew the prophet Muhammad in a negative light. I mean its the most logical and simplest reason, though it could be wrong.
Maybe its all political or social strife, but I just don't see why they would attack a cartoonist if that's what it was.
|
Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists?
It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book?
|
On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Show nested quote +Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book?
I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation
If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible?
|
On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible?
if there was no text, then there wouldn't be a way to misinterpret it
|
People have killed over so many insane reasons, if we banned everything that inspired a killer, just about everything would be banned.
|
that's not a very good point imo given the area that the text reaches (on the scale of billions)
|
On January 08 2015 15:28 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible? if there was no text, then there wouldn't be a way to misinterpret it
If you look at propaganda videos of Islamists, it is less about them talking about God, heaven, and other non-material things and more about politics. If someone brought an imam to them and convinced them that they are on the wrong side of the Quaran, they would respond (if they were indeed convinced) "Yes you convinced me that I am doing bad, but you did not convince me that the Americans/Ba'athists/Arab nationalists are not bad." The motivation of these attacks is not religion, it is largely political. Such attacks from the Middle East has happened before during the Cold War, but the motivation was largely Arab nationalism and Marxism. Islamism became fashionable when these ideologies failed their political goals and Islamism naturally filled the vacuum.
I would recommend listening to Majid Nawaz and his experience with Islamism, it is much much more than a bunch of people screaming "Allah Ackbar"
tl;dr shit like this would still be happening even if the Qauran did not exist. Whenever there is anger, there will always be some sort of ideology to grab hold of it.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On January 08 2015 15:28 CorsairHero wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible? if there was no text, then there wouldn't be a way to misinterpret it
Chicken and egg arguments are meaningless. You could argue this way about anything and reach no conclusion.
|
On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible?
I don't think your question can be answered objectively without supplying some more information. You've kind of phrased it like you know the answer. It sounds both leading and loaded but whatever. The only answer someone could give is their opinion, you need a better question before you can really look for facts.
Imagine you had a drug that treated some fatal disease. You run a test on the drug. The FDA analyzes your data and rejects it and you go back and protest like this to the FDA: a majority of people who took the drug survived and a minority who took the drug died so is there really a problem with the drug? You have to actually scientifically compare how many people are dying of the disease anyway by looking at control groups and base rates. Not to mention statistically figuring out whether the difference you found is strong enough to support a causative link
The same thing applies to the problem you presented right? Can't the social sciences help us figure this out? If you first define some things like criteria for what positive and negative interpretation mean (and probably also add inconsequential interpretation because that looks like a false dichotomy) and then analyze what a subset of society with a text is doing compared to the rest of society with no text or competing texts, then maybe you could answer it confidently. But the way you asked the question is just opening the floodgates and I think you knew that.
|
On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible?
The problem is that those abrahamic faiths have the privilege of being called religions otherwise those books would be illegal and printers/distributers charged with hatespeech and public incitement to criminal acts. (Maybe not in the US with strong freedom of speed laws but I think in a lot of european countries at least)
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
On January 08 2015 16:22 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible? I don't think your question can be answered objectively without supplying some more information. You've kind of phrased it like you know the answer. It sounds both leading and loaded but whatever. The only answer someone could give is their opinion, you need a better question before you can really look for facts. Imagine you had a drug that treated some fatal disease. You run a test on the drug. The FDA analyzes your data and rejects it and you go back and protest like this to the FDA: a majority of people who took the drug survived and a minority who took the drug died so is there really a problem with the drug? You have to actually scientifically compare how many people are dying of the disease anyway by looking at control groups and base rates. Not to mention statistically figuring out whether the difference you found is strong enough to support a causative link The same thing applies to the problem you presented right? Can't the social sciences help us figure this out? If you first define some things like criteria for what positive and negative interpretation mean (and probably also add inconsequential interpretation because that looks like a false dichotomy) and then analyze what a subset of society with a text is doing compared to the rest of society with no text or competing texts, then maybe you could answer it confidently. But the way you asked the question is just opening the floodgates and I think you knew that.
If only it were as easy as studying the effects of drugs. Human culture is more difficult to study ceteris paribus because it is so complex and diverse. While medical tests also run into trouble isolating variables like lifestyle and genetics, it's far more difficult to research a person's personality, history, belief system, personal beliefs and biases, etc. A lot of it comes down to the fact that these things can only be discovered through interviews and self evaluative answers which are inherently unreliable. Human psychology for many isn't even considered a science in the strictest sense.
My question does not strip the potential for causality between text and interpreter. Of course there is a causality. But as mentioned earlier it is difficult to say whether it is entirely the text causing the misinterpretation (due to ambiguous language, improper teaching of the text, or whatever), or if it is the interpreter imbuing the text with his own beliefs. I am no literature professor, but I will say that the discussion regarding author-text-reader interpretations isn't something easily settled.
It is entirely possible that people that interpret texts in a violent way were in fact influenced in large part by the text. But it is almost impossible to arrive at a remotely scientific or objective conclusion as to how much that influence was. We can't dissect thoughts and emotions. Unlike the medical example, a biopsy isn't going to give you an answer.
On January 08 2015 16:35 REDBLUEGREEN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2015 14:54 lichter wrote:On January 08 2015 14:38 radscorpion9 wrote:On January 08 2015 14:33 Redox wrote:Is it unreasonable to say that maybe the book itself has at least *some* problems, and that it may be playing a fairly significant role in helping recruit terrorists? It is not unreasonable, it is just completely pointless to declare that and counter productive. What would that achieve? Telling the peaceful muslims that they are doing it wrong and that they should become violent and fight us if they want to be true to their holy book? I think you misunderstand, I would point out that its the violent muslims who have the incorrect interpretation, and that they should adopt the interpretation of the peaceful muslims. That way they can still follow their religion, but in a more benign form (as with Christianity today). Women's rights is another issue, but we can cross that bridge later after the most egregious forms of extremism (suicide bombing, the attack in France, etc.) are dealt with to a sufficient degree. Anyway 12:44 AM so time to sleep. Hope I added something useful to the conversation If a reasonable majority of a population can interpret a text in a positive and constructive way, and a minority interprets it in a negative way, then is the problem really with the text or those interpreting it in the worst way possible? The problem is that those abrahamic faiths have the privilege of being called religions otherwise those books would be illegal and printers/distributers charged with hatespeech and public incitement to criminal acts. (Maybe not in the US with strong freedom of speed laws but I think in a lot of european countries at least)
Well this is a difficult topic. Taken out of context, of course many parts sound like hate speech. But they were written hundreds or thousands of years ago, edited hundreds of years ago, and were an indelible part in the development of human culture. While many will argue that we have outgrown the need for religion as a moral guide, it is impossible to argue that our moral code was not heavily influenced by religion and many important leaps were because of religion. The fact that texts were kept largely unaltered over the last hundred years isn't because people believe that the questionable parts of texts remain true, but rather out of sentimentality and the desire to maintain tradition. (let's keep accusations of religious administration manipulating text to suit their needs out of this)
Would any piece of literature (especially ones from hundreds and thousands of years ago) that depicts cultures while enumerating similar laws be considered hate speech? Of course not. The main difference is that the texts in question are believed by millions or billions of people. While I understand the need to remove these ambiguous passages in texts, tradition is an important part of human culture and the opportunity to misinterpret these texts should be quashed by proper education, whether scientific or scriptural.
|
Gunfight in Paris, one of the guy is in the subway.
|
According to french live news channel, sadly, another shooting ocurred in France, at Porte de Chatillon, in Southern Paris.
At least two persons have been injured, including a police officer.
People who have witnessed the attack claims that the suspect is a black bald man (one of the suspect of the hunt is bald, but that's not a proof that it's him), who used an assault rifle during the gunfight and had a white car. However he escaped using the subway.
Whether this attack is related to the Charlie Hebdo shooting remains unclear.
These are the first informations, nothing has been confirmed.
EDIT : Additional information sources claims two police officer are among the injured.
EDIT : Another news channel announces that one suspect has been arrested, who's the man arrested is really unclear, we don't know if he's one of the hunted men.
EDIT : The gunfight has been officially confirmed.
EDIT : Sadly, witness state on live stream that both policemen are dead, this is not confirmed by any official sources...
|
One problem with this kind of extremism is that it's way better at rallying poor young bums in the streets than, say, school 
|
A "black guy" again? Are witnesses seeing the attacker(s) as black because of the clothes or is there actually another guy with an assault rifle..
|
France’s prime minister, Manuel Valls, said the two men were known to intelligence services and the fear that they could carry out another attack “is our main concern.” Valls told RTL radio there had been several detentions overnight during the manhunt.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
