|
Keep the discussion ON TOPIC. This thread is for discussing the terror attacks in Paris. |
On November 15 2015 22:52 CptMarvel wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:44 OtherWorld wrote:On November 15 2015 22:41 Reaps wrote:On November 15 2015 22:40 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:
[quote]
Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you.
Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered.
I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack.
A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. No, the arguments can't easily be made because even atheists believe in some kind of god, they just like to call it something else in an attempt at distinguishing themselves. But yeah, nice source, mate  Lol what? please tell me more. His conception is that everyone believes in something, be it a god, a concept, or an ideal. Honestly, that's not false. Much like Communists of the XXth, who were wildly atheist, believed in their ideology just like in a god. Or like some scientists hate all religions because it's "irrational", yet believe in Science up to irrationality. Could you please give an example of someone "believing" (not approving the choice of verb) in science up to irrationality?
a lot of mathematicians working on some advanced abstract theories have become nuts.
Pythagoriciens committed suicide because they could not compute sqrt(2).
|
not an hoax (sry wrong word), just panic, no gunfire
english not my 1st language 
|
|
|
Skimming over posts since I went to bed last night and we get to this....
On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. The exact same way you don't need to believe in anything that doesn't suit Ockham's razor, goes against common sense and modern social views.
Why are people linking super shitty onion knock offs as sources? Can we not?
I'm as big of a atheist as anyone, fuck religion, blah blah, all of that shit. But linking bullshit as fact makes us all look like idiots. Using garbage "satire" sites as ammunition makes you either a fool or completely disingenuous to having a honest, fact based discussion on reality.
|
On November 16 2015 02:46 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm not sure that's exactly the point OtherWorld was going for, but if I may jump in, I think what's important to draw from this is that an absence of religion doesn't equal rationality (or "sanity", as I was told in a precedent debate here that we're using rationality here in a context where we should really use "sanity"). There is such a thing as dogmatic atheism, a lot of so-called "Harris followers" are a prime exemple of it. If I'm going to define myself as a secularist and an agnostic, which I am going to, I'm not going to do it so that we can unite around those "new" ideas and treat them just as we would the old ones, as an ideology. I like to question, and I will continue doing so. Sanity has nothing to do with it, sanity concerns the judgment altered of a person because of some mental desease, I am pretty sure most of the guys of Daesh are not psychotics they just evolve in a different environnement. Anyway, an absence of religion does not equal rationality, yes, I am agree with that, an absence of religion does not erase faith and silly superstitions that everyone has but religion equals irrationality. It is not rational to believe in all the stuffs that Bible implies (cf the darwinism debate). In fact, faith is not rational. Moreover, science explains what is nature but nature has still been explained in religious book, if I was religious, I would probably be against science, at least, I find it coherent. I am not saying that religious people are irrationals on every aspects, and a lot of atheists are pretty irrational too with their superstitions, habits, what I am saying is religion and this system of thought is irrational in its core because it needs faith. Scientists can be believers but they do not science as believers. Moreover, if you consider islam as an ideology, why don't you condemn it for its doctrines? It is pretty strange because I know there are différents interpretations and blabla but still, people killing people for it. I know there are social and historical reasons to it, poverty, racism, colonialism, chaos in Irak, Syria, palestinian conflict, (I would dare say paternalism) but there have been a lot of others massacres in the name of some modern ideology which are almost universally condemned despite the fact that there emerged in a period of social tensions too. We can take a cause of this stuff and say "no it is not" or say "yeah it is just it and only it" just because we want it, otherwise, it will strike again... And in fact, I am pretty sure it will strike again.
No one is saying faith is rational.
I do condemn islam as I do any other ideology, what makes you think I don't? If I were talking to an extremist muslim who justified a bad act based on what's written in a book, I would criticize him for it. As it happens, that's not who I'm talking to here, or almost ever on internet. Just because the other sides have insane ideas doesn't mean we should excuse the insane ideas of our side. I don't even know that we're on the same side.
"there have been a lot of others massacres in the name of some modern ideology which are almost universally condemned despite the fact that there emerged in a period of social tensions too."
Maybe I didn't get this right, but what the hell? If it is established that the Middle East has some legitimate grievances about american and israeli foreign policy, and I think it is, it doesn't suddenly make blowing people up justified. How is having a clear picture of what matters in a conflict related to how universally you condemn terrorism?
|
On November 16 2015 03:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:Skimming over posts since I went to bed last night and we get to this.... Why are people linking super shitty onion knock offs as sources? Can we not? I'm as big of a atheist as anyone, fuck religion, blah blah, all of that shit. But linking bullshit as fact makes us all look like idiots. Using garbage "satire" sites as ammunition makes you either a fool or completely disingenuous to having a honest, fact based discussion on reality.
Many a true word is spoken in jest.
Here's a recently conducted research which shows that faith and devotion into a God or any kind of ideology can be "cured": http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611992/Scientists-experiment-magnets-immigrants-God-magnetic-waves
|
On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:On November 15 2015 10:36 darkness wrote:
It's funny how Facebook, Youtube, etc wear a French flag but no one wore one when that Russian plane was taken down. Not that I'm fan of Russia but double standards.. EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you.
Except they never said anything like that. The problem is apparently that you don't understand their satirical humor.
|
On November 16 2015 03:37 ForTehDarkseid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 03:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:Skimming over posts since I went to bed last night and we get to this.... Why are people linking super shitty onion knock offs as sources? Can we not? I'm as big of a atheist as anyone, fuck religion, blah blah, all of that shit. But linking bullshit as fact makes us all look like idiots. Using garbage "satire" sites as ammunition makes you either a fool or completely disingenuous to having a honest, fact based discussion on reality. Many a true word is spoken in jest. Here's a recently conducted research which shows that faith and devotion into a God or any kind of ideology can be "cured": http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611992/Scientists-experiment-magnets-immigrants-God-magnetic-waves
Linking a terrible satire website as evidence of something means you have no ground to stand on. You've got nothing so you have to go to something that is 100% fabricated for yuck yucks in an attempt to prove a point. If you actually want to fight the good fight don't stoop to trying to pass of BS as real.
As for the magnets, that proves nothing. The brain is a powerful and fragile thing. You can manipulate, for better or worse, any idea provided you stimulate the right area with the proper apparatus. Everything you've ever thought of felt in your entire life comes from some area of your brain, if you start fucking around in there you can mess with things. That's not breaking news. Using magnets to play with the threat response area of the brain messes with a persons ideology, makes sense to me. But that doesn't have anything to do with religion being a mental illness or anything of the sort. All it means is you can fuck with someones brain which we've known for a long time.
If you've ever taken any mind expanding drugs or brain medication you'd know just how amazingly powerful the brain is and just how fragile it is. Changing even 1 dial slightly can totally alter your world. If you've never imbibed personally I can tell you, as others can attest as well, that it is profound.
|
On November 16 2015 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 02:46 stilt wrote:On November 16 2015 01:54 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm not sure that's exactly the point OtherWorld was going for, but if I may jump in, I think what's important to draw from this is that an absence of religion doesn't equal rationality (or "sanity", as I was told in a precedent debate here that we're using rationality here in a context where we should really use "sanity"). There is such a thing as dogmatic atheism, a lot of so-called "Harris followers" are a prime exemple of it. If I'm going to define myself as a secularist and an agnostic, which I am going to, I'm not going to do it so that we can unite around those "new" ideas and treat them just as we would the old ones, as an ideology. I like to question, and I will continue doing so. Sanity has nothing to do with it, sanity concerns the judgment altered of a person because of some mental desease, I am pretty sure most of the guys of Daesh are not psychotics they just evolve in a different environnement. Anyway, an absence of religion does not equal rationality, yes, I am agree with that, an absence of religion does not erase faith and silly superstitions that everyone has but religion equals irrationality. It is not rational to believe in all the stuffs that Bible implies (cf the darwinism debate). In fact, faith is not rational. Moreover, science explains what is nature but nature has still been explained in religious book, if I was religious, I would probably be against science, at least, I find it coherent. I am not saying that religious people are irrationals on every aspects, and a lot of atheists are pretty irrational too with their superstitions, habits, what I am saying is religion and this system of thought is irrational in its core because it needs faith. Scientists can be believers but they do not science as believers. Moreover, if you consider islam as an ideology, why don't you condemn it for its doctrines? It is pretty strange because I know there are différents interpretations and blabla but still, people killing people for it. I know there are social and historical reasons to it, poverty, racism, colonialism, chaos in Irak, Syria, palestinian conflict, (I would dare say paternalism) but there have been a lot of others massacres in the name of some modern ideology which are almost universally condemned despite the fact that there emerged in a period of social tensions too. We can take a cause of this stuff and say "no it is not" or say "yeah it is just it and only it" just because we want it, otherwise, it will strike again... And in fact, I am pretty sure it will strike again. No one is saying faith is rational. I do condemn islam as I do any other ideology, what makes you think I don't? If I were talking to an extremist muslim who justified a bad act based on what's written in a book, I would criticize him for it. As it happens, that's not who I'm talking to here, or almost ever on internet. Just because the other sides have insane ideas doesn't mean we should excuse the insane ideas of our side. I don't even know that we're on the same side. "there have been a lot of others massacres in the name of some modern ideology which are almost universally condemned despite the fact that there emerged in a period of social tensions too." Maybe I didn't get this right, but what the hell? If it is established that the Middle East has some legitimate grievances about american and israeli foreign policy, and I think it is, it doesn't suddenly make blowing people up justified. How is having a clear picture of what matters in a conflict related to how universally you condemn terrorism?
For the first point, I just say that every religions and religious system of thought is irrational in its core.
I thought you don't condemn it as an ideology because, well maybe I misunderstood, but you seem to imply that the guy of Daesh were insanes, it exonerates totally the ideology and even the social condition for my point of view. For our point of view, it seems obvious that these guys have some mental sickness but there are not crazy in the clinic definition for the most part I guess. (A friend is specialized in epistemology of psychiatry categories, I would probably ask him more question about it...)
For the second part, I don't say this is justified at all, I say there are a lot of social factors which make the people in despairs and angers ( and they found or at least they believed to find a solution in religion. It can be in a pacific and spiritual way but some parts of the text and some interpretations made by theologians lead to... a few people acting like this.
|
I want to point the fact this is Isis who claim this attack. If they are realy behind it, I think this show how the solution to this"terrorism problem" cannot only be military since one organisation (al quaeda) is replace by another (IS).
Also everyone is jumping to the fact that is IS because they say it. Is there other proof than their revendication?
Media saying its a very well organised attack ? Maybe Im wrong but you only need some watches, A-ks, explosives to do this, and gather infornation on public places. From what I know it could be "radicalisation" by itslef in France who could do this.
I read that one of the terrorist were in Syria in 2013-2014, so It could be a connection.
But maybe media are making free advertising to IS?
|
On November 16 2015 04:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 03:37 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 16 2015 03:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:Skimming over posts since I went to bed last night and we get to this.... Why are people linking super shitty onion knock offs as sources? Can we not? I'm as big of a atheist as anyone, fuck religion, blah blah, all of that shit. But linking bullshit as fact makes us all look like idiots. Using garbage "satire" sites as ammunition makes you either a fool or completely disingenuous to having a honest, fact based discussion on reality. Many a true word is spoken in jest. Here's a recently conducted research which shows that faith and devotion into a God or any kind of ideology can be "cured": http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611992/Scientists-experiment-magnets-immigrants-God-magnetic-waves Linking a terrible satire website as evidence of something means you have no ground to stand on. You've got nothing so you have to go to something that is 100% fabricated for yuck yucks in an attempt to prove a point. If you actually want to fight the good fight don't stoop to trying to pass of BS as real.
Arguments can be easily made about how in some cases religious people tend to behave very similar to those who suffer from a mental disease. This is exactly the ground I am standing at, but it's kinda of-topic atm.
The problem is that various people are suffering and dying just because someone's holy book and preachers interpreting it advocate towards the violence, ignorance and incompetence. Does such followers come as sane and responsible people for you?
If you ask me, those books and rites are dangerous.
You can manipulate, for better or worse, any idea provided you stimulate the right area with the proper apparatus.
Citation needed. Mind-expanding drugs don't manipulate the ideas, they generate them. Also during the experiment, the psychological and emotional identity of examinee was exactly preserved, but subject's reaction changed.
|
On November 16 2015 05:01 ForTehDarkseid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 04:14 OuchyDathurts wrote:On November 16 2015 03:37 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 16 2015 03:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:Skimming over posts since I went to bed last night and we get to this.... Why are people linking super shitty onion knock offs as sources? Can we not? I'm as big of a atheist as anyone, fuck religion, blah blah, all of that shit. But linking bullshit as fact makes us all look like idiots. Using garbage "satire" sites as ammunition makes you either a fool or completely disingenuous to having a honest, fact based discussion on reality. Many a true word is spoken in jest. Here's a recently conducted research which shows that faith and devotion into a God or any kind of ideology can be "cured": http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/611992/Scientists-experiment-magnets-immigrants-God-magnetic-waves Linking a terrible satire website as evidence of something means you have no ground to stand on. You've got nothing so you have to go to something that is 100% fabricated for yuck yucks in an attempt to prove a point. If you actually want to fight the good fight don't stoop to trying to pass of BS as real. Arguments can be easily made about how in some cases religious people tend to behave very similar to those who suffer from a mental disease. This is exactly the ground I am standing at, but it's kinda of-topic atm.
Poorly sourced arguments from unfunny satire websites can be made. You can make stupid arguments for literally anything, that doesn't mean they're founded in reality. You came in here, dropped a BS article as if it was real and walked away. I'm calling you out on posting BS as someone on this side of the fence. People need to call out lies, even if they come from their camp.
You can manipulate, for better or worse, any idea provided you stimulate the right area with the proper apparatus.
Citation needed. Mind-expanding drugs don't manipulate the ideas, they generate them. Also during the experiment, the psychological and emotional identity of examinee was exactly preserved, but subject's reaction changed.
Drugs can make you think things you've never thought in your life or abandon ideas you've held your entire life. I've personally felt the effects, had thought processes altered through drugs.
Yep, if you target 1 localized area you tinker with the thoughts that area deals with. There's nothing new there and it has nothing to do with what you're claiming it does. The brain has many regions, each region deals with different things. There are different tools for interacting with those regions, each tool can give a different effect on the same region. If we use X tool on a region of the brain if might have a net "positive" effect. If we use Y tool on that exact same region of the brain it might have a very "negative" effect. Same region, different tool, different results. So if you disable the threat response center of your brain with magnets as your tool this is what you get.
But once again this has absolutely nothing at all with religion being a mental illness. All it means is that those thoughts stem from that area of the brain. Not that they've got anything to do with a mental problem. You're trying to make connections that aren't there.
The problem is that various people are suffering and dying just because someone's holy book and preachers interpreting it advocate towards the violence, ignorance and incompetence. Does such followers come as sane and responsible people for you?
If you ask me, those books and rites are dangerous.
Ok, once again I'm from the same camp. I think religion causes many of the problems modern society faces because people believe things that aren't founded in rationality. But I don't make claims then use The Onion to back them up, that's the difference. Look at your sources before you link them as evidence or you've just kneecapped yourself and the people on your side of this argument. You can't point your finger at the religious and say "Your book is lies, you believe lies!" and then you yourself link a made up article full of lies as your evidence. Do you not see the hypocrisy there? TheNewsNerd isn't a legitimate site so don't link it as such, you're doing yourself and potential allies a disservice. I don't know if you knew it was bullshit when you linked it or if it was an honest mistake of not checking the source. There are a lot of terrible satire news sites out there these days.
Check your sources before you post them and argue in good faith. Back to the topic at hand.
|
Ministry of defense just announced that France has been massively bombing ISIS in Syria (Raqa) these last few hours, destroying training camps as well as at least one commanding post.
This is far from enough and may be inefficient in itself but it's a start. It's about time we start taking concrete action.
|
On November 16 2015 03:12 OuchyDathurts wrote:Skimming over posts since I went to bed last night and we get to this.... Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 22:34 ForTehDarkseid wrote:On November 15 2015 22:28 farvacola wrote:On November 15 2015 22:19 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 22:11 zdarr wrote:On November 15 2015 22:05 CptMarvel wrote:On November 15 2015 21:49 TheNewEra wrote:On November 15 2015 21:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 15 2015 18:39 Incognoto wrote:On November 15 2015 14:52 ElMeanYo wrote:
[quote]
EXACTLY. Just like no flags went up because of the German pilot who decided to commit suicide and take 200 people with him. Edit, please don't reference charlie shitdo, that magazine is trash and I wouldn't wipe my ass with it, I'd get aids from doing so. seriously fuck those people Charlie Hebdo was and is wonderful. Those people have been brutally murdered for drawing cartoons and caricature, and all you find to say is "fuck those people"? Disgusting. You have the right not to like them, but this is disgusting. Charlie Hebdo says: 'Fuck the people who were murdered just for flying in an airplane'. That seems to be ok for you. Two people here basically say: ' Fuck Charlie Hebdo for making cruel jokes of such a dire situation'. And you get crazy defensive because they were murdered. I'm terrible sorry for what happened to Charlie Hebdo. But that doesn't mean you can't call them out for being assholes in that situation. Let's see if they will make fun of the victims of this attack. A lot of people here, having never opened a satirical paper in their lives, don't seem to understand what Charlie Hebdo is about. I won't comment on the attacks, everything's been said already. And to hell with your religions already. They're nothing but nests to the stupidest, most horrific radicalizations of the modern era. Take your absolute beliefs and shove them up your butts. Or well, keep shutting your eyes so tight you end up seeing the feeble lights emitted by what's left of your brains, but FOR FUCKS SAKE stop pulling the trigger on innocent people. Why does everybody has to blame the religion ? Video games are as much to blame, and we all know it's beyond stupid. You sir greatly underestimate the role religions play in spreading ignorance, violent behavior and the fatal lack of common sense that's instrumental in losing enough of your humanity to actually kill another person. An everspreading mental disease with no known cure. And you sir greatly underestimate humanity's tendency towards violence regardless of the ideological justification chosen. But yes, go on thinking that religious people collectively suffer from an "ever spreading mental disease." That'll do wonders moving forward. http://www.thenewsnerd.com/health/apa-to-classify-belief-in-god-as-a-mental-illness/How about this? I mean the arguments can be easily made, but you can't fight a well organised lobby and honeslty you don't need to. The exact same way you don't need to believe in anything that doesn't suit Ockham's razor, goes against common sense and modern social views. Why are people linking super shitty onion knock offs as sources? Can we not? I'm as big of a atheist as anyone, fuck religion, blah blah, all of that shit. But linking bullshit as fact makes us all look like idiots. Using garbage "satire" sites as ammunition makes you either a fool or completely disingenuous to having a honest, fact based discussion on reality.
It's always been too close to something like schizophrenia - the delusions of grandeur and hearing voices and all that (or even something like OCD with the obsessions of purity, the superstitious rituals for cleansing and punishment...). I mean if someone comes up to you on the bus and says they're on a mission from God and that he's telling him all sorts of things, you'd think he was crazy. But institutionally we do the same thing without the same skepticism. Luckily I don't think most people actually believe in the stuff, but follow it along for social and metaphorical and therapeutic purposes. The world would look really weird if religious people really believed in all of it.
|
On November 16 2015 06:24 PoP wrote:
Ministry of defense just announced that France has been massively bombing ISIS in Syria (Raqa) these last few hours, destroying training camps as well as at least one commanding post.
This is far from enough and may be inefficient in itself but it's a start. It's about time we start taking concrete action.
I agree. It's far from the solution, this is naturally a very complex problem, but it's about time a country starts taking this seriously. The powers that be in America seem to think none of this is real. I wish strength to the French in light of this.
|
On November 15 2015 18:58 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2015 12:28 Rebs wrote:On November 15 2015 09:31 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 09:06 Rebs wrote:On November 15 2015 07:45 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 07:24 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 07:12 Squat wrote:On November 15 2015 05:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2015 04:51 Djzapz wrote:On November 15 2015 04:43 yamato77 wrote:
[quote]
That's presupposing a causal relationship, which is simply not the case.
I'd argue that bigotry against homosexuals in the U.S. was inbuilt by the hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values, but was not caused by Christianity itself.
Alas, this is a stupid digression and has nothing to do with the attacks on Paris any longer. Debating the merits of religion is a poor way to understand what happened in Paris, and why groups like ISIS perpetuate violence.
I'd say anyone who wants to understand ISIS better should take a closer look at 20th century Middle-Eastern history, particularly the history of Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Understanding the cycles that have created groups like the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS is important. Russia, the U.S. and Europe all played a role in the instability of the region that has led to its current state. To consider the possibility of a relation does not presuppose a causal relationship. You said it yourself, "hetero-normative societal structure that obviously included Christian values". To understand this phenomenon (which I don't), people have to consider Christian values and its influences, its dynamics - which, like I said, takes nothing away from Christians. But the ideology is there. If you want to understand the ideology, you need to consider this factor as part of the explanation. Or at the VERY LEAST, a potential part of the explanation that needs to be vetted before it's dismissed. This is just an example to point out that Islam extremism cannot be understood if we're constantly told that it has nothing to do with Islam. You can't just take a sensitive component of a problem and just say "we have no clear causal link right now (having not looked at it closely), so we'll just not look at it at all, ever". The thing is, in the picture that you describe, the role of islam is the role of any ideology. There is a certain notion going on, that notion needs help channeling, an ideology happens to be in the vicinity and so that ideology is used. That's always been how these things work. So does islam play a role in that sense? Yeah, of course. But is that role relevant? I don't see how you can make that case without going for specific criticism of islam as opposed to other ideologies, like others in the thread have been doing. Unless you want to make a case against ideologies in general, in which case I would agree with you, but not think this is the best time to make it. Out of curiosity, when would be the right time to have that debate? Because according to the self-flagellating crowd who seem incapable of believing that things can go wrong without western imperialism, that time is never. The amount of mental gyrations on display in this thread speaks volumes about how eager people are to assume the mantle of responsibility for everything bad happening in the middle east, conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of European-born citizens, who have never had a hair touched by any western occupation force, have made a mass exodus to some of the most war-torn and desolate places in the world, all to enroll with the most brutal and doctrinaire group of religious fanatics in modern history. Everything matters. History matters. Geopolitics matter. Socioeconimics matter. Lack of national identity and long-standing tribal feuds matter. Lack of opportunity, failed states and crumbling societies matter. And yes, sincerely held beliefs about the fundamental nature of reality and the ancillary ideology matter. Taking any of these factors off the table or simply waving them away with the peremptory hand of the effete neo-liberal too mired in white guilt for real objectivity is not a recipe for honest discussion. It's simply lazy and disingenuous. And the real irony here is that the people who are most likely to suffer from this obscurantism are regular, peaceful muslims,who only want to go about their lives. The refusal to engage directly with the deeply problematic aspects of Islam is the cause of an immense amount of both confusion and conflation, linking every expression of the faith to the suicidal mania that jihadists so fervently embrace. No one has any trouble believing that the homophobia of some local judge in Arizona is rooted partly in Christianity, yet no one is tempted to indict all Christians because of it. There is no reason we cannot have a similarly broad view of Islam. So we agree. Everything matters. Why are you telling this to me, and not to the countless people in this thread who would like to focus on religion, and are doing just that? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly describes how ideologies work, it must automatically mean that he's an apologist who says the ideology doesn't matter at all? Why is it that everything is so clear when it comes to christianity and islam to you, but when someone correctly says there are other factors at play, he just wants to "self-flagellate" and blame the west for everything? Please, be consistent. First, I should probably take a step back and acknowledge that many people place undue focus on religion as a factor. Point taken. However, when you say that the versions of the anatomy of an ideology presented in this thread are correct, I have to disagree. The problem with this view of ideologies is that the possibility for destructive behaviour is directly linked to the tenets, and therefore subject to whatever doctrine is in play. Take Mao or Stalin, who murdered millions in the name of their vision of how humanity ought to live, actions directly attributable to what they believed to be true about the larger reality. Yet they never threw homosexals off of rooftops, or whipped women who did not cover their hair. There is nothing in the doctrine of communism that mandates that kind of behaviour, yet it is not too difficult to find in any one of the holy books revered by most people on this planet. Belief guides behaviour. This idea that ideologies simply serve as vehicles or frameworks for deeper values is just manifestly false. Ideology moulds people just as people mould the ideology. There seems to be a rather virulent meme going around these days that suggests no one ever really does anything on the basis of these ideas, that somehow the ideological committments are stored on an external hard drive and don't interact with worldly actions in any way. You do not appear to be one of them, so don't take it personally. I was arguing against this intellectual malaise that strikes me as almost entirely self-imposed, not pointing fingers. If it came off that way, I apologise for that. And there in lies the problem, the fact that you accept of quotes without context that scripture being employed is meant to extol the ideology. + Show Spoiler +http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-wahhabism-saudi-arabia_b_5717157.html Tthese ideologies did not exist where I was brought up. They were imported and forced onto the poverty stricken, the marginalized and the disenfranchised. Yes after a certain point your right, in that once its weaved into the fabric of a peoples identity then they become mutually reinforcing. They are quite mainstream now No religion has a single binding overwhelming set of jurisprudence and rules that governs every ones actions. That is why you have sects for example. But because a specific subsection decides to behave a certain way they are in fact imposing their ideology because its a very fresh ideology in the context of the religions history. There is a historical context to the lines that are quoted by ISIS or whatever for doing things that are unsavory. Most of them are instructions to address issues for a very specific time, place or incident often unsavory but understandable if not endorsable. They are not "core" tenets.However easy it might be to assume because if you pick a a few lines out of a book that has over 6000 verses as "supposedly" core tenets. They are not and when you do that, and say "accept responsibility for your religion and lets talk about we can fix it" you are automatically forcing people to put up walls and fire back. If you like you really want to have this discussion then also educate yourself a bit on both sides instead of saying. Well we cant have a discussion if one part of the discussion doesnt do the requisite research and not some half assed googling that lets you find exactly what you are looking for, because the internet is quite good at that (im not saying you do it but that seems to be the standard justification.) Here are some quick tips. Your first sentence is strange, not sure what it means. For whatever it's worth, I have read the Koran cover to cover and much of the Hadith. My best friend's father was a mulla for eleven years in Teheran before they moved to Sweden, and he taught me a great deal about the practical application of specific doctrines. I am also very familiar with the concept and tenets of Wahabism. I don't blame you for reflexively assuming I lacked any in-depth knowledge, since many who speak on this subject clearly do. My point was not that the core tenets of Islam are best expressed in the behaviour of ISIS, which I am perfectly aware is not the case. But it does manifest some version or interpretation of Islam, or sub-sect if you prefer; one that can only be discredited by attacking its roots, which in turn is an impossible task if the efforts are constantly disrupted by well-meaning yet confused cries of bigotry. Ultimately, I was talking more about the general reluctance to attribute any maladaptive behaviour whatsoever to ideology, to any degree. A few quick questions: Why is IS doing this? What are they hoping to accomplish? What is their ultimate goal? How are they specifically distorting the core teachings of Islam? What is the main motivating force that drives college educated, middle class parents in their late twenties or older in western Europe to go to Syria and likely end up dead in a ditch somewhere? I'm not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested in your response. You cant really attack an ideology that is fundamentally corrupt because you fall into a gutter game that doesnt have a solution. Most ideoligies are based on faith, or atleast should be. Extremist ideologies are based on conviction. Conviction does not question it just does. Faith by its very nature exists because there is doubt and hence interpretations are fluid and honesty thats how the state of religion should be. + Show Spoiler +Just so you know I do a grand total of zero conventionally islamic things. I drink, I love pepperoni and smoke weed everyday. I dont follow the core tenets of any of the interpretations. I am not a huge fan of ritual practice either. But I do consider myself a person of faith, I just make faith based exceptions to what my understanding of religion affords me and find myself better of for it. Honestly my solution is not attacking ideology but as morbid as it sounds is to frankly wipe them out. Its not really a solution as much as an exasperation and frustration and although I havent lived in Pakistan for the last 10 years or so. I visit often and they have tried everything, after a certain point even Frankenstein decided he just had to kill his monster that was the only way, and its the same for us. Everything else they try is a disaster.Its easy to sit here and say that sitting in relative safety which is why I avoid saying it but thats really it. IS is doing this for power and control why else do people do bad things ? Realistically the people at the top are doing exactly what they profess, they are going to at the very least try and land grab as much of the middle east that they can. it doesnt matter if there isnt a realistic goal at the end of the day a life of loot and plunder with the kind of power trips it affords is something these people have warped into. As for how they are distorting teachings. I gave you a link read it. I cant speak to the specifics but again its mostly people who are disavowed, disenfranchised or looking for some kind of meaning. Twisted messages while twisted can still be appealing depending on circumstance. And its not like the people they are fighting against dont have their own fair share of blood on their hands. Its an easy argument to make if you have killed as many people as the West has. There are some people attracted to that, not all people. + Show Spoiler [On Hadith] + most Hadith are bullshit even the ones that offer genuinely good advice. Its similar to how politicians in the US quote founding fathers like their quotes are a dime a dozen. There hardly 7 or 8 Muttawatir Hadith iirc (i'll give you credit for knowing what Muttawatir is. At the very least everything else is a chinese whisper a millenium in the making. I'll part by saying we'll just have to agree to disagree on the degree to which ISIS and their recruits are influenced by doctrine vs terrestrial grievances or ambitions, but I do take your point about the immense and perhaps unnavigable quagmire of trying to engage in a war of ideas with people like them. Other than that, thank you for your reply. We see things differently, but you clearly know a great deal more than the average person on the subject. Also, for those who are upset with the percieved double standard of French flags on youtube etc, please consider the deeper implications of an attack like this. Going simply on body count doesn't really tell the whole story here. This was an attack on the very heart of the enlightenment and the cradle of modern, secular democracy. Choosing Paris as the target was no accident. The symbolic value of the act matters.
Fair enough, look im not saying indoctrination isnt a problem, but its not the one you can target if you want to win. Believe me they have been trying for years now. At the end of the day people gravitate towards the message that addresses greivances. Its also alot to do with the inability of nations to keep these people safe, and even offer them some semblance of a normal life. Normal for them mind you, still hard life and a struggle but atleast safe.
Some of them, infact many of them join out of fear aswell. To keep their families safe and so on any and all means of recruitment are viable.
+ Show Spoiler +I had a long rant about my personal experience working with Afghan refugees but fuck it.. What happened in Paris in 13/11 is 24/7 for these people. And no one has ever found a reason to blame refugees http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e487016.html
|
On November 16 2015 06:24 PoP wrote:
Ministry of defense just announced that France has been massively bombing ISIS in Syria (Raqa) these last few hours, destroying training camps as well as at least one commanding post.
This is far from enough and may be inefficient in itself but it's a start. It's about time we start taking concrete action.
The west (so france as well) as been bombing ISIS for months now.
|
On November 16 2015 06:24 PoP wrote:
Ministry of defense just announced that France has been massively bombing ISIS in Syria (Raqa) these last few hours, destroying training camps as well as at least one commanding post.
This is far from enough and may be inefficient in itself but it's a start. It's about time we start taking concrete action.
i don't understand this part. so they knew where they were, but didn't bomb them until retaliation was required? are we supposed to be surprised by this bombing?
|
The idea that we should fight ideas with ideas, discourse with discourse, is rational at first sight, but very bourgeois and useless if you look at it closely. It is not the knowledge of the Qu'ran (and a strict interpretation of it) that drive those people, in fact they barely know anything about it. A year ago we catched two guy going to syria with "Le Coran pour les nuls" in their bags (The Qu'ran for dummies). It's in the society, in the their daily life, that those kids find reasons for their involvement with ISIS and their desire to leave France and go fighting in Syria (or to come back in France to blew themselves up).
But it is easier to believe the solution is in the elaboration of an "enlighted islam", in the ideal, than in actually changing the world.
|
On November 16 2015 07:23 Faefae wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2015 06:24 PoP wrote:
Ministry of defense just announced that France has been massively bombing ISIS in Syria (Raqa) these last few hours, destroying training camps as well as at least one commanding post.
This is far from enough and may be inefficient in itself but it's a start. It's about time we start taking concrete action. The west (so france as well) as been bombing ISIS for months now.
France had 2 fighters in the air before, they had 10 fighter-bombers today. Small change of scale.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
