ironchimp
Full Member
Simian Overlord
Posts: 456 
|
Post by ironchimp on Jan 17, 2015 20:30:02 GMT -5
this discussion makes no difference either way - all it does is cause friction between people. but i sincerely hope your countries are never embroiled in a long scale conflict. (sorry spoon ignore the quote that was by accident - and i cant seem to delete it - has nothing to do with what i have just said.) |
|
|
|
Post by spoon on Jan 17, 2015 20:38:39 GMT -5
this discussion makes no difference either way - all it does is cause friction between people. but i sincerely hope your countries are never embroiled in a long scale conflict. (sorry spoon ignore the quote that was by accident - and i cant seem to delete it - has nothing to do with what i have just said.) I thought you "quoting" a dramatic pause I had, because I'm really good at those. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 17, 2015 20:54:04 GMT -5
this discussion makes no difference either way - all it does is cause friction between people. but i sincerely hope your countries are never embroiled in a long scale conflict. I haven't participated much in this thread and I and aims to keep it that way but I agree. Unfortunatly what human beings should do and what they really do are quite different many times. And while sometimes the consequences for a person's actions may not be just but they have to be expected. For as long as we've been on this planet we've never been good at getting along with one another. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 17, 2015 21:15:09 GMT -5
this discussion makes no difference either way - all it does is cause friction between people. but i sincerely hope your countries are never embroiled in a long scale conflict. I haven't participated much in this thread and I and aims to keep it that way but I agree. Unfortunatly what human beings should do and what they really do are quite different many times. And while sometimes the consequences for a person's actions may not be just but they have to be expected. For as long as we've been on this planet we've never been good at getting along with one another. What's even worse is that when we do get along, we usually find a way not to after a while. I still can't believe how fast Yugoslavia turned into hell afer they held the olympics... There's even a Norman Rockwell painting praising the country for how well its different groups get along. Sure, that may all have been a misconception in the west; sure, there may have been a lot of trouble brewing... but people were not shooting at each other, and then they were. Someone decided to start that. Since I criticized Joe Sacco a bit earlier, it's only fair that I praise him now for his work on Yugoslavia. I think he did a very convincing job of showing how ordinary people can start doing horrible thing for no apparent reason. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 4:35:23 GMT -5
I think you completely misunderstood my post. Something "inciting" racial hatred because a fanatic saw it and committed murder, that's not inciting hatred. Fanatics will find a reason to be fanatics. A woman not covering her face? Chop her f**king head off. Now, if instead of an image of Mohammad, it was instructions on how to make an IED and a suggestion to plant it at a mosque, that's a different story. As well as celebrating those who do it. An image of Mohammad is not the same as saying "Billy Bob was right for shooting that cab driver in a turban. I wish there were more people like him." Because simply depicting Mohammad is not encouraging, endorsing, or promoting violence. It's a drawing of a guy who died over a thousand years ago. Nothing more. We can't control what offends religious fanatics. Some are offended by Harry Potter. Some are offended by Charles Darwin. F**k 'em. They need to grow up. "Not to mention, promoting hate against Muslims is also illegal in France. It just turns out that drawing Mohammad is not considered promoting hate on the same level as celebrating someone who had just murdered a dozen people." I apologise - I thought you meant they should be considered equally. A cartoon of a guy who died nearly two millennia ago should be considered a hate crime on the same level as calling for the genocide of an entire ethnicity? No, that's not what I meant. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 4:38:05 GMT -5
I think you completely misunderstood my post. Something "inciting" racial hatred because a fanatic saw it and committed murder, that's not inciting hatred. Fanatics will find a reason to be fanatics. A woman not covering her face? Chop her f**king head off. Now, if instead of an image of Mohammad, it was instructions on how to make an IED and a suggestion to plant it at a mosque, that's a different story. As well as celebrating those who do it. An image of Mohammad is not the same as saying "Billy Bob was right for shooting that cab driver in a turban. I wish there were more people like him." Because simply depicting Mohammad is not encouraging, endorsing, or promoting violence. It's a drawing of a guy who died over a thousand years ago. Nothing more. We can't control what offends religious fanatics. Some are offended by Harry Potter. Some are offended by Charles Darwin. F**k 'em. They need to grow up. again tho - a swastika is just 6 lines - but you cant do it germany. is that right? I completely agree with you but personally on every level i think it was a bad idea and my country will suffer. If one accepts that it was inevitable someone would shoot the cartoonist (and for me it was inevitable rightly or wrongly) this opened the door for yet more new anti privacy laws in britain which had already been blocked but now have legitimacy, far right on streets, new members for these groups, and random retaliatory attacks. That was also inevitable. In other words a leftist anti establishment magazines actions will lead to new authoritarianism through loss of freedom (not a blow for freedom) and growth in far right. It was such a terrible idea. "Terrorists don't like cartoons, stop making them" Where does it end? "Terrorists don't like snowmen, gays, women driving, atheists, alcohol, lets stop all that before some whack job with a gun mows a bartender down in the street." |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Jan 18, 2015 10:36:07 GMT -5
I haven't participated much in this thread and I and aims to keep it that way but I agree. Unfortunatly what human beings should do and what they really do are quite different many times. And while sometimes the consequences for a person's actions may not be just but they have to be expected. For as long as we've been on this planet we've never been good at getting along with one another. What's even worse is that when we do get along, we usually find a way not to after a while. I still can't believe how fast Yugoslavia turned into hell afer they held the olympics... There's even a Norman Rockwell painting praising the country for how well its different groups get along. Sure, that may all have been a misconception in the west; sure, there may have been a lot of trouble brewing... but people were not shooting at each other, and then they were. Someone decided to start that. Since I criticized Joe Sacco a bit earlier, it's only fair that I praise him now for his work on Yugoslavia. I think he did a very convincing job of showing how ordinary people can start doing horrible thing for no apparent reason. My simple answer is because violence is an intricate part of humanity just as is self preservation. Terrorists' and the things they do promote terror, some people live in fear of their lives, and why terrorism works and will continue to work. It's design really has no flaw. And then add in the fact many of the perpetrators aren't afraid to die themselves makes it even harder if not impossible to dismantle short of an atrocity equal to theirs. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 3:30:19 GMT -5
The only real way to combat a problem like that is culturally. With education and outreach. Make little kids in Afghanistan dream of being astronauts and not warriors for ISIS. You can kill every active terrorist today and tomorrow more will be regrouping, that is if something within their community isn't done to make suicide bombing look less appealing.
And honestly, I think secularism would be a big help.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 19, 2015 11:55:16 GMT -5
The only real way to combat a problem like that is culturally. With education and outreach. Make little kids in Afghanistan dream of being astronauts and not warriors for ISIS. You can kill every active terrorist today and tomorrow more will be regrouping, that is if something within their community isn't done to make suicide bombing look less appealing. And honestly, I think secularism would be a big help. That's my feeling as well, it's very similar to how gangs are combated here in the states and while it has yet to totally abolish gangs in areas where the strategy has been truly given the effort, passion and funding it needs there have been measurable declines in gang violence and I think the same strategies could be successful in combating extremism. I don't know if you'd need to encourage secularism either as religion is usually part of the community building strategies over here, but there are less extreme sects of Islam that are popular and introducing those teachings would be a must. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 15:56:33 GMT -5
I mean secularism as in the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 19, 2015 16:23:50 GMT -5
I mean secularism as in the government. Ah, yes now that's a horse of a different color. While I think a more democratic government with definite checks and balances is the safest bet for any populace I'm not too comfortable imposing that on others; if they want a religious leader then they are welcome to it though that much power in one person's hands does seem to open itself up for abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2015 16:30:54 GMT -5
Depends on the religion. Not saying Christianity is better, but certain moderate denominations certainly are better than less moderate denominations of Islam that actually rule a huge chunk of the middle east. I don't care what the people want, the state should not be executing women for adultery. At that point I think it's time for the UN to overthrow that nation and impose a new form of government.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Jan 19, 2015 16:48:09 GMT -5
www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/us-britain-security-muslims-idUSKBN0KS0WY20150119Now, I haven't seen the full text of the letter from the above story, so maybe it was overly patronizing but from what is being reported the message seems like a good one; please safe guard our homes by showing our youth that extremism is not the way. Are the Imams specifically being targeted because they are Muslim? Yes...because the threat to security being faced comes from Islamic extremists so it only makes sense that a moderate Muslim voice would be able to stem that tide. If the issue were Catholic Extremists you can bet a similar letter would be sent to Catholic priests or if it were militants from the Republic of X community leaders of communities with heavy immigrant populations from that country would receive the same as well...it's just logical so I'm not sure what the issue is. But like I said, we don't get the whole text so perhaps the letter does promote a sense of Islamaphobia and that side just isn't being printed, but it just seems odd.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Jan 20, 2015 12:40:40 GMT -5
I mean secularism as in the government. Speaking as a religious person, government has no business being involved with any religion, and no religion has any business being involved in government. Any time any religion has had undue influence over any government, it's been a recipe for disaster and discrimination. Separation of church & state was one of the best things the founding fathers ever came up with. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Jan 20, 2015 15:39:15 GMT -5
I mean secularism as in the government. Speaking as a religious person, government has no business being involved with any religion, and no religion has any business being involved in government. Any time any religion has had undue influence over any government, it's been a recipe for disaster and discrimination. Separation of church & state was one of the best things the founding fathers ever came up with. Absolutely! Separation of church and state is the best way to ensure freedom of worship. What worries me a lot is that these days, many countries seem to confuse secularism with religion-bashing. In my opinion, a secular state does not frown upon religion; it simply does not take it into account. It ranks it as being as significant, no more and no less, as stamp collecting or garlic consumption. |
|
