WTF IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE

[KaskadskyjKozak]

cartoons, man, cartoons...

[ClimbingPanther]

would jon, timmy & porter get assassinated if someone posted a cartoon?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

we'll find out... here comes the fatwa!!

[StevenSeagal]

Convert to Buddhism or I'll kill all you fuckers.

 

[JayB]

added note: it seems as though you spend a bit of time in the lab, so your understanding of chemical processees gives you the knowledge to note that certain chemical reactions are predictable, step by step. step one happens, catalyses step two, etc etc.

 

my point is that in general, violence begets violence. it has been called a universal law by some.

while suicide bombings are "barbaric", they don't happen in a vacuum. they tend to happen in environments where people feel themselves to have no other choice with which to respond to the difficult conditions they face. morally condemning anyone doesn't change the situation.

 

1. Only part of the discussion at hand has been concerned with suicide bombings. Are poverty and desperation behind honor killings, forced marriage, etc?

 

2. If we transition from the general and abstract to the real and concrete and look at who is actually engaging in what, how well does the notion that all people of all cultures who encounter a particular set of hardships are equally likely to respond with suicide bombings - irrespective of their religion or culture?

 

And how true is it that those who do engage in this act have necessarily been driven to do so by either material hardships or extremes of political repression that have no analogue anywhere else in the globe or throughout history? Does the intensity and distribution of suicide violence correlate perfectly with either poverty or repression? If not - how do you explain this? How well does the existence of suicide terrorists who were neither poor, nor uneducated, nor subject to political repression fit into this scheme? How tough are things for the immigrants in Denmark who were plotting to murder the cartoonist compared to, say, the hundreds of thousands of desperately poor, HIV-infected people living in a Sowetto slum?

 

I'm willing to concede that as repression and deprivation increase, so does desperation - and a certain amount of violence grows out of that. It's not the Brazilian street-kids or Haitan boat-people that are detonating themselves in discos, though, is it? Why do you think this is the case?

 

 

[rob]

Jay, your posts are too smart for me. I can't read them. Can you dumb them down a bit?

 

use words like assclown

 

thx.

[JayB]

And, of course, when one chooses sides according to one's prejudice, 100% of the blame can always be apportioned to one side.

I disagree with this simply because I don't see this happening. I see a lot of people blaming themselves for inciting what is being brought down on our heads.

 

You don't see it? What's happening is both one and the other- either one blames Islam entirely for the conflict, or blames America and wallows in self loathing. Both are short sighted and not seeing the bigger picture.

Do you suppose if some intelligent alien without bias or knowledge of human history came to Earth and observed the goings on, they would intuitively see a peace loving USA being mercilessly attacked by a group of savage, foreign invaders who adhere to a intolerant, violently oppressive and psychotic religious doctrine? Or might they see the world's richest and most powerful country, one which enjoys the sole privelege of maintaining standing armies and bases in foreign countries all over the world, one which uses it's economic might to dictate if not coerce many countries into operating in particular ways favorable to it, one which- forcibly or not- also exerts overt cultural influence upon most other cultures, being attacked by a group of savage, foreign invaders who adhere to a intolerant, violently oppressive and psychotic religious doctrine?

 

Viewed that way, one might conclude that the nature of humans is violent conflict and a perpetual need to control everything and everyone around them. The fact that one culture happens to have particular aspects that are more modern and enlightened and tolerant and compassionate is all relative, since that same culture also happens to currently have all the power and control. This country was founded by people who rebelled against an occupying government and a culture from which they wanted separation- in other words, it came about through an insurgency that required what today's pundits if placed in 1700's England would deem "terrorism".

 

Focusing on fragmented details ignores the examination of humanity as a whole. Since most have no patience for an objective examination of humanity, the most common reaction then is to say "that's human nature, can't change it". At which point one gives up and resigns that nothing can be changed, therefore, one chooses sides in the conflict according to one's prejudice and soldiers on, ensuring a continuation of the status quo.

 

Which leads us back to my original point- it's all their fault!

 

1. How well does this address terrorist attacks that aren't directed against the US?

 

2. Is there a direct equivalence between the violence employed by the American colonists and modern jihadists to advance their particular ends?

 

3. Are all ends furthered by violent means morally equivalent to one another? Both the allies and the Germans used mass-bombings of civilian population centers as part of the tactics that they employed in an effort to secure victory? Did that render the Allies and the Axis powers morally equivalent to one another, and the outcome a matter of indifference? Would your hypothetical observers look at the two sides, see them bombing each others cities, and conclude that any moral distinctions between the two sides were rendered mute by the use of equally horrible tactics?

 

4. People from all over the world are affected by American power. Are all people from all cultures equally likely to manifest their grievances by plotting to detonate themselves in midtown Manhattan or Disneyland?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Good questions, Jay. Consider the case of Vietnam. Over the course of a few decades the French and Americans killed millions of Vietnamese - combatants and non-combatants alike. Their country was destroyed, jungles deforested. They have every reason to hate us and want to exact revenge. But do we see Vietnamese terrorists plotting to destroy our country? Do they have protects where they burn our flag and chanting "America is Satan"? If we printed some cartoons mocking their country, people, government and way of life, would they seek to kill the authors and publishers of said cartoons. It seems there's more to it in the case of those in middle eastern countries who want us destroyed - including countries we have never invaded, nor in which we have killed millions. I wonder, just what the difference could be...

[Hugh Conway]

Good questions, Jay. Consider the case of Vietnam. Over the course of a few decades the French and Americans killed millions of Vietnamese - combatants and non-combatants alike. Their country was destroyed, jungles deforested. They have every reason to hate us and want to exact revenge. But do we see Vietnamese terrorists plotting to destroy our country? Do they have protects where they burn our flag and chanting "America is Satan"? If we printed some cartoons mocking their country, people, government and way of life, would they seek to kill the authors and publishers of said cartoons. It seems there's more to it in the case of those in middle eastern countries who want us destroyed - including countries we have never invaded, nor in which we have killed millions. I wonder, just what the difference could be...

 

They aren't exactly the biggest fans on Americans. Difference? They likely fear the Chinese more.

[JayB]

Good questions, Jay. Consider the case of Vietnam. Over the course of a few decades the French and Americans killed millions of Vietnamese - combatants and non-combatants alike. Their country was destroyed, jungles deforested. They have every reason to hate us and want to exact revenge. But do we see Vietnamese terrorists plotting to destroy our country? Do they have protects where they burn our flag and chanting "America is Satan"? If we printed some cartoons mocking their country, people, government and way of life, would they seek to kill the authors and publishers of said cartoons. It seems there's more to it in the case of those in middle eastern countries who want us destroyed - including countries we have never invaded, nor in which we have killed millions. I wonder, just what the difference could be...

 

One could also consider the cases of Japan and Germany, both in terms of the tactics used to win the conflicts, and in terms of the presence of an occupying force for years after the conflict, and permanent bases....

[prole]

added note: it seems as though you spend a bit of time in the lab, so your understanding of chemical processees gives you the knowledge to note that certain chemical reactions are predictable, step by step. step one happens, catalyses step two, etc etc.

 

my point is that in general, violence begets violence. it has been called a universal law by some.

while suicide bombings are "barbaric", they don't happen in a vacuum. they tend to happen in environments where people feel themselves to have no other choice with which to respond to the difficult conditions they face. morally condemning anyone doesn't change the situation.

 

1. Only part of the discussion at hand has been concerned with suicide bombings. Are poverty and desperation behind honor killings, forced marriage, etc?

 

2. If we transition from the general and abstract to the real and concrete and look at who is actually engaging in what, how well does the notion that all people of all cultures who encounter a particular set of hardships are equally likely to respond with suicide bombings - irrespective of their religion or culture?

 

And how true is it that those who do engage in this act have necessarily been driven to do so by either material hardships or extremes of political repression that have no analogue anywhere else in the globe or throughout history? Does the intensity and distribution of suicide violence correlate perfectly with either poverty or repression? If not - how do you explain this? How well does the existence of suicide terrorists who were neither poor, nor uneducated, nor subject to political repression fit into this scheme? How tough are things for the immigrants in Denmark who were plotting to murder the cartoonist compared to, say, the hundreds of thousands of desperately poor, HIV-infected people living in a Sowetto slum?

 

I'm willing to concede that as repression and deprivation increase, so does desperation - and a certain amount of violence grows out of that. It's not the Brazilian street-kids or Haitan boat-people that are detonating themselves in discos, though, is it? Why do you think this is the case?

 

The Koran is actually like a time-release Tylenol capsule, that was designed by Muhammed to release thousands of tiny suicide bombers in the late 20th and early 21st century. No wait, Islam is like a disease, and when enough people catch it, they start blowing themselves up. No wait, Western civilization and Islam are like matter and anti-matter. No wait...

[StevenSeagal]

 

1. How well does this address terrorist attacks that aren't directed against the US?

 

Perfectly well- in so many words I stated that human nature is the desire and control of everything. That is what the human ego wants, craves. Over centuries, most cultures have begun to develop more tolerant attitudes that curb this desire into more passive/aggressive manners of pursuing that gratification, of hiding it's true aims. The difference is that Islamic culture is centuries behind and is still steeped in openly aggressive, angry, violent action to simply take what you want. It's very childish indeed but the danger of it in adult minds has been demonstrated. And the fact that, as you pointed out, terrorist attacks are not limited to being against Americans and American interests, indicates that this isn't just the US vs. Islam. The ego of the Islamist wants everything, right now, therefore everyone is expendable. The thing is, it's no different with any other humans except that societal influences in most other cultures have directed this impulse into less violent means.

 

2. Is there a direct parallel between the violence employed by the American colonists and modern jihadists?

 

On relative terms, maybe so. If you were a teenager in Iraq, what's the likelihood you would see Americans as invaders and occupiers? If you were an American colonist, what's the likelihood you would see the British as oppressors? If you were an English nobleman in the 1700's what's the likelihood you'd see the American colonists as rebellious, traitorous scum?

It's called relativity. Your status as an American today makes it seem unthinkable that the American colonists were in the wrong. I'm not suggesting they are or aren't, just that one's perceptions are relative.

So what about Islam? I personally think the tenets of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine, and much of the culture that is results from it, is reprehensible and completely unacceptable and ill suited to the formation of a peaceful society. But even the most moderate person brought up in Islamic society would have a view of it that is comparatively relative.

 

You keep bringing up "moral equivalence". Well, most Christians as well as Islamists would condemn one for having out of wedlock sex. I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all, in fact I think religious repression of sexuality is one of the strangest and most neurotic parts of organized religion. Everyone, myself included, is convinced their morality on this issue is, well, the most "moral". So which one is righteous? You cannot answer this without consulting your own prejudices.

 

3. Are all ends furthered by violent means morally equivalent to one another? Both the allies and the Germans used mass-bombings of civilian population centers as part of the tactics that they employed in an effort to secure victory? Did that render the Allies and the Axis powers morally equivalent to one another, and the outcome a matter of indifference? Would your hypothetical observers look at the two sides, see them bombing each others cities, and conclude that any moral distinctions between the two sides were rendered mute by the use of equally horrible tactics?

 

Unless you've picked sides according to your prejudices, how much difference is there exactly? My hypothetical observers would surely see thousands of German citizens who were powerless (individually if not collectively) to stop Hitler's policies being incinerated by American bombs. America was in the right- but only within the paradigm of humanity's inability to advance beyond their ill manners of relationship and lack of understanding of their own egos and minds- manipulation, possession, acquisition, oppression- that breed such conflicts in the first place. We clearly aren't advanced enough to have done anything differently, but this resistance to even discussing these flaws- aided interminably by our mindless identification with nationalism, patriotism, and- surprise!- our religions, and helped further along by manipulative people in power who seek even greater power, certainly helps perpetuate our stumbling from one conflict to another.

 

4. People from all over the world are affected by American power. Are all people from all cultures equally likely to manifest their grievances by plotting to detonate themselves in midtown Manhattan or Disneyland?

 

Obviously not. But would it be any different if they manifested those grievances by becoming politically active in their country and working to incite a nationalist war against the US someday, using patriotism to whip their citizens into an anti-US frenzy? Are bombs with a country's name on them being dropped on the US 'morally equivalent' to an Islamic woman with a name and address detonating herself on the Space Mountain roller coaster? Is it this "personal touch" that disturbs people so much?

[Seahawks]

Convert to Buddhism or I'll kill all you fuckers.

 

 

 

Conver to Buddism or I'll have to eat more beef.

[StevenSeagal]

STFU Seafag!

[Seahawks]

STFU Seafag!

 

LOL

[prole]

3. Are all ends furthered by violent means morally equivalent to one another? Both the allies and the Germans used mass-bombings of civilian population centers as part of the tactics that they employed in an effort to secure victory? Did that render the Allies and the Axis powers morally equivalent to one another, and the outcome a matter of indifference? Would your hypothetical observers look at the two sides, see them bombing each others cities, and conclude that any moral distinctions between the two sides were rendered mute by the use of equally horrible tactics?

 

Hmmm.

Do you reckon that the fact that the folks who have plotted this particular atrocity represent (The Good Guys) provides much comfort for the people who (were) on the wrong end of the (firebombing of Dresden, Tokyo)

Edited February 14, 2008 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Somebody somewhere along the way here asked me something about property rights versus civil liberties and made a point to slip the "commie" line in. To whoever that was, please fuck off.

[sexual_chocolate]

1. Only part of the discussion at hand has been concerned with suicide bombings. Are poverty and desperation behind honor killings, forced marriage, etc?

 

i know. i addressed the aspect i specifically disagreed with, since it was lumped in with these subjects.

 

i don't think honor killings and forced marriages are directly driven by poverty and desperation. i would tend to think that poverty and desperation can make people cling to traditions though, making "progress" more difficult....

 

remember too that both of these occur in other countries and cultures also, with india coming to mind (hindu traditions).

 

and, no i don't support these traditions. my own set of values contradict these traditions, since i tend to support the growth of the individual to his or her greatest potential (enlightenment perhaps).

 

 

2. If we transition from the general and abstract to the real and concrete and look at who is actually engaging in what, how well does the notion that all people of all cultures who encounter a particular set of hardships are equally likely to respond with suicide bombings - irrespective of their religion or culture?

 

what would the relevance of this be? i don't quite understand....

the japanese suicide bombers, the hero who sacrifices his own life for a cause (from our own culture)....

 

i would also bet that if the people in question had the weapons to respond in what you consider a conventional fashion, doubtlessly they would.

 

 

And how true is it that those who do engage in this act have necessarily been driven to do so by either material hardships or extremes of political repression that have no analogue anywhere else in the globe or throughout history? Does the intensity and distribution of suicide violence correlate perfectly with either poverty or repression? If not - how do you explain this? How well does the existence of suicide terrorists who were neither poor, nor uneducated, nor subject to political repression fit into this scheme?

 

tell me what the point you are trying to make with this line of questioning is? is it that the muslim tradition rewards suicide bombers, or is it something else?

 

 

How tough are things for the immigrants in Denmark who were plotting to murder the cartoonist compared to, say, the hundreds of thousands of desperately poor, HIV-infected people living in a Sowetto slum?

 

were they plotting a suicide mission?

 

yes it is clear that there is religious zealotry. this isn't new.

 

 

I'm willing to concede that as repression and deprivation increase, so does desperation - and a certain amount of violence grows out of that. It's not the Brazilian street-kids or Haitan boat-people that are detonating themselves in discos, though, is it? Why do you think this is the case?

 

what's your thinking on this?

 

i don't think, first of all, the brazilian kids have been very politicized. is their anger towards the US extreme? how about the haitians?

 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2008 by sexual_chocolate

[sexual_chocolate]

I wonder, just what the difference could be...

 

what do you think?

[JayB]

 

1. How well does this address terrorist attacks that aren't directed against the US?

 

Perfectly well- in so many words I stated that human nature is the desire and control of everything. That is what the human ego wants, craves. Over centuries, most cultures have begun to develop more tolerant attitudes that curb this desire into more passive/aggressive manners of pursuing that gratification, of hiding it's true aims. The difference is that Islamic culture is centuries behind and is still steeped in openly aggressive, angry, violent action to simply take what you want. It's very childish indeed but the danger of it in adult minds has been demonstrated. And the fact that, as you pointed out, terrorist attacks are not limited to being against Americans and American interests, indicates that this isn't just the US vs. Islam. The ego of the Islamist wants everything, right now, therefore everyone is expendable. The thing is, it's no different with any other humans except that societal influences in most other cultures have directed this impulse into less violent means.

 

2. Is there a direct parallel between the violence employed by the American colonists and modern jihadists?

 

On relative terms, maybe so. If you were a teenager in Iraq, what's the likelihood you would see Americans as invaders and occupiers? If you were an American colonist, what's the likelihood you would see the British as oppressors? If you were an English nobleman in the 1700's what's the likelihood you'd see the American colonists as rebellious, traitorous scum?

It's called relativity. Your status as an American today makes it seem unthinkable that the American colonists were in the wrong. I'm not suggesting they are or aren't, just that one's perceptions are relative.

So what about Islam? I personally think the tenets of fundamentalist Islamic doctrine, and much of the culture that is results from it, is reprehensible and completely unacceptable and ill suited to the formation of a peaceful society. But even the most moderate person brought up in Islamic society would have a view of it that is comparatively relative.

 

You keep bringing up "moral equivalence". Well, most Christians as well as Islamists would condemn one for having out of wedlock sex. I don't think there is anything wrong with it at all, in fact I think religious repression of sexuality is one of the strangest and most neurotic parts of organized religion. Everyone, myself included, is convinced their morality on this issue is, well, the most "moral". So which one is righteous? You cannot answer this without consulting your own prejudices.

 

3. Are all ends furthered by violent means morally equivalent to one another? Both the allies and the Germans used mass-bombings of civilian population centers as part of the tactics that they employed in an effort to secure victory? Did that render the Allies and the Axis powers morally equivalent to one another, and the outcome a matter of indifference? Would your hypothetical observers look at the two sides, see them bombing each others cities, and conclude that any moral distinctions between the two sides were rendered mute by the use of equally horrible tactics?

 

Unless you've picked sides according to your prejudices, how much difference is there exactly? My hypothetical observers would surely see thousands of German citizens who were powerless (individually if not collectively) to stop Hitler's policies being incinerated by American bombs. America was in the right- but only within the paradigm of humanity's inability to advance beyond their ill manners of relationship and lack of understanding of their own egos and minds- manipulation, possession, acquisition, oppression- that breed such conflicts in the first place. We clearly aren't advanced enough to have done anything differently, but this resistance to even discussing these flaws- aided interminably by our mindless identification with nationalism, patriotism, and- surprise!- our religions, and helped further along by manipulative people in power who seek even greater power, certainly helps perpetuate our stumbling from one conflict to another.

 

4. People from all over the world are affected by American power. Are all people from all cultures equally likely to manifest their grievances by plotting to detonate themselves in midtown Manhattan or Disneyland?

 

Obviously not. But would it be any different if they manifested those grievances by becoming politically active in their country and working to incite a nationalist war against the US someday, using patriotism to whip their citizens into an anti-US frenzy? Are bombs with a country's name on them being dropped on the US 'morally equivalent' to an Islamic woman with a name and address detonating herself on the Space Mountain roller coaster? Is it this "personal touch" that disturbs people so much?

 

I appreciate the thoughtful responses.

 

I'm familiar with moral relativism, and accept that people's circumstances condition their perspective to a large extent. Accepting that this is true doesn't mean that I have to concede that the particular framework through which any particular actor perceives a particular event is by default - by the fact of its very existence - either as moral or as legitimate as any other perspective held by any other observer.

 

Geoffrey Dahmer may not have been capable of making a moral distinction between his actions and those of the Donner Party, but that doesn't render the distinction between eating the flesh of the dead in order to survive, and murder to gratify a perversion any less real or absolute. The fact that both George Washington and Osama bin Laden employed violent means in an effort to secure certain political ends doesn't render the distinctions between the types of violence they employed, their targets, or their ends any less meaningful or absolute. That's all.

 

As far as the War of Independence is concerned, I am actually quite sympathetic to the English case. I do think it was reasonable to tax the colonies in order to support the expenses associated with defending the border, that the English colonial rule in the colonies was both generous and lax by the standards of the time, and that on the whole the British troops acted with an admirable degree of civility and restraint throughout the conflict. One can look at both Canada and Australia and see quite clearly that a continuation of British rule would have hardly been detrimental to the rights or liberties of the subjects, and may well have brought about the end of slavery in the US in 1834 instead of 1863, and prevented the civil war or anything like it from occurring.

 

Having said all of that, pretending that either the means employed by the colonists or the ends that they were persuing render them the moral equivalents of the contemporary jihadists is indefensible in any sane or rational moral framework.

 

.................................................................

 

5d7Ms48DQX0

[lI1|1!]

 

a flute with no holes is no flute.

 

a doughnut with no holes is a danish.

 

[StevenSeagal]

[ClimbingPanther]

Somebody somewhere along the way here asked me something about property rights versus civil liberties and made a point to slip the "commie" line in. To whoever that was, please fuck off.

finding something about my post to be offended about is a reason to avoid the intellectual content? brilliant!

[rob]

hey, I want to be offended too. Nobody plays with me.

[tvashtarkatena]

Somebody somewhere along the way here asked me something about property rights versus civil liberties and made a point to slip the "commie" line in. To whoever that was, please fuck off.

finding something about my post to be offended about is a reason to avoid the intellectual content? brilliant!

 

If you're really interested in proper discourse, ask properly next time.