I'm not saying don't have rules; we have rules against people killing people with knives, and rules that help prevent it. There already are rules and tactics and strategies for preventing and mitigating terrorist attacks, keep improving those.
I'm meaning more from a perception point of view. Some guy decides to kill his family and a bunch of other people because his tree told him to is tragic, probably makes it on the news, but it doesn't generate wall to wall news alerts and responses from world leaders across the globe. Why should the guy that did the same thing because some group in a far away country told him to instead of his tree generate such a different response? It seems to me that the public perception to each should be similar.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Here is a fine example of politicans in Britain. Diane Abbott. 30 year MP.
Pretty much sums up the average politician in most countries. A little non-committal here, a little more there, nobody can tell that you didn't answer the question. This lady was just an idiot. While not many including myself are fans of Trump, he sometimes has a brash aspect I appreciate because he isn't your classic politician. This lady just ended her career with that interview. Good job from the interviewer.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bluejays For This Useful Post:
Your value of human rights is concerningly low, and your fear of terrorism gullibly high.
That's a terrible combination, as seen by your willingness to part for one to possibly protect you from the other.
If I'm trading rights to stop something, let it have a higher than "near zero" chance of impacting my life.
The ability to spread religious extremism that advocates killing people is pretty low on my list of things worth preserving... even for "near zero" impact.
We're not talking about trading healthcare, education, gender equality, or critical discourse here. In fact, we might even get to enhance them.
Also, the assumption whatever the UK comes up with would have to be a major civil liberties infringement and your assumptions with regards to where I feel the balance needs to lie simply for pointing out that there is a balance to be had suggests that you are the one who is arguing from a position of fear.
The ability to spread religious extremism that advocates killing people is pretty low on my list of things worth preserving... even for "near zero" impact.
I have a pretty narrow definition of what constitutes dangerous speech. However, I feel no allowances whatsoever should be made for the speech having a religious inspiration. I see no difference between a political party that says Jews are parasitic subhumans, and a religious movement that says people who insult their deity deserve to die.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 06-07-2017 at 09:13 PM.
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I'm not saying don't have rules; we have rules against people killing people with knives, and rules that help prevent it. There already are rules and tactics and strategies for preventing and mitigating terrorist attacks, keep improving those.
Isn't that what we are talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
I'm meaning more from a perception point of view. Some guy decides to kill his family and a bunch of other people because his tree told him to is tragic, probably makes it on the news, but it doesn't generate wall to wall news alerts and responses from world leaders across the globe. Why should the guy that did the same thing because some group in a far away country told him to instead of his tree generate such a different response? It seems to me that the public perception to each should be similar.
You don't find a difference between what we consider a mental health issue (which absofrickenlutely has a lot of news alerts) and people actively recruiting and brainwashing people to commit murder? You counter schizophrenia with medication, and maybe you can terrorism by going after the propagandists.
The ability to spread religious extremism that advocates killing people is pretty low on my list of things worth preserving... even for "near zero" impact.
We're not talking about trading healthcare, education, gender equality, or critical discourse here. In fact, we might even get to enhance them.
Also, the assumption whatever the UK comes up with would have to be a major civil liberties infringement and your assumptions with regards to where I feel the balance needs to lie simply for pointing out that there is a balance to be had suggests that you are the one who is arguing from a position of fear.
You absolutely nailed it, I really don't think there is anything to add.
How would you possibly every expect to have a reference for that? It's an argument. Not a fact you would reference.
Kind of my point, it's not a fact just an opinion. Those are however clearly things that could be studied for example. Not easily referenced though.
I don't have a problem with your opinion, just wanted to underline that you're suggesting things that could and probably would have serious negative consequences without knowing if it would actually be useful.
I get where you're coming from, but I feel it's a dangerous path, especially in these days when populists with fascist tendencies are rising in popularity and even winning elections.
Last edited by Itse; 06-08-2017 at 05:16 AM.
Reason: Wanted to put my point less provocatively.
I'll also let you in on a little secret, one of my best friends who is Muslim married a white Christian girl and her parents haven't spoken to her since. They've disowned her and called her a sand ****** loving whore when she told them she was going to marry a Muslim.
If the parents called their daughter that ridiculous name they have racism problems indeed, BUT, there is a huge difference in calling her and her new husband a name and not speaking again to the alternative of being buried up to the neck and stoned to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryblood
Now I don't know if you're a racist, but there is zero doubt you're a bigot. It's written in every single one of your posts and the hate is very strong.
I'm far from a racist, I grew up in a multicultural family, went to school with Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Sikh's and Jews. During the 70-80's I actually think Jews got the roughest ride out of all them.I myself was called "philicheeze", I wasn't thrilled with this nic but what can you do?
I don't remember any real backlash at all on the Muslim community except from the Hindu's and Sikh's, they weren't friendly at all. things started changing when Osama bin Laden came along, even after his series of embassy bombings and the USS Cole there wasn't much talk blaming Islam, But it was that fateful day in 2001 that started the worldwide bigotry towards Islam, maybe it's the power of the internet and instant news but the whole world can now see barbarism at it's worst.
If you look at the UK, of the 63 million people only 2.7 million are Muslim. that's 4.4%, yet since 9-11 probably 100% of terrorist attacks came from that small group. bin Laden's sick and twisted mind spawned a large group worldwide to think only Islam matters. He and his followers and the real racists
If me being totally disgusted in such awful practices such as Sharia law and Wahhabism is being a bigot then so be it, give me a capital B but I have zero hate towards brown,black,white or pink people no matter what their religion as long as they treat others with equal respect I like them equally. Islam needs to reform these crazy parts out and NOW
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 06-08-2017 at 02:52 AM.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
I don't have an issue with exploring the possibility of allowing some curtailment of freedom of speech and/or religion where it can be shown that there is direct incitement to hatred and terrorism and violence.
However, I find that worthwhile thorny debate somewhat lost in the frothy-mouthed posts here about Sharia law and the backwardsness of "Muslims" more generally.
It is both counter-productive and beside-the-point to leap to introduce all of this extra, barely-veiled bigotry into a debate where it is not required. Sharia law is its own issue, and is different wherever you go. The atrocities committed by rebel groups in the Philippines are an issue apart. There are many issues in the world: that's not new.
If you cannot discuss a specific issue without rattling off a laundry list of perceived wrongs committed by Muslims worldwide - a heterogeneous group of roughly 1.3B people - I'd suggest that you should probably start any related debate by looking at your own views.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
If you cannot discuss a specific issue without rattling off a laundry list of perceived wrongs committed by Muslims worldwide - a heterogeneous group of roughly 1.3B people - I'd suggest that you should probably start any related debate by looking at your own views.
The global issues are brought up in here in response to two arguments:
1) The argument that the violence is motivated by Western meddling in the Middle East.
It's perfectly logical to run that hypothesis through a comparative analysis of other regions of the globe with a history of Western military intervention and political meddling, and see in which countries it has inspired terrorism against civilians. The next logical step is to then do a cross-analysis of all the places in the world where Islamic terrorism is taking place and to see how many are subject to Western military meddling.
After doing those two analysis, the findings are that the commonality of the places targeted with Islamist terrorism against civilians isn't Western military intervention, but the existence of Islamist radicalism - which is found around the globe.
2) The argument that all religions are the same because all have inspired violent radicals.
The logical response to that argument is to define what violent extremism is in a religious context and do a comparative analysis across religions. Admittedly, there's some subjectivity there. However, I'd suggest that flogging or killing sinners instead of just shaming them, and killing apostates instead of just denouncing them, is a sensible place to draw the line.
That analysis shows us that Islam today is home to more violently intolerant adherents than other religions.
If you don't think a religion where close to half the adherents globally countenance violence to enforce their religious dogma is ripe ground for the recruitment of religiously-motivated fanatics... If you think something like the Charlie Hebdo murders could just as easily have been carried out by Catholics or Hindus or Buddhists... well, I don't know what to say.
To say all Muslims support terrorism is rank idiocy. To say the terrorism we're witnessing in the West has nothing to do with Islamic extremism evident across the globe is also rank idiocy. Thankfully, rational people don't have to choose one of those two simplistic and ignorant options.
And to repeat: The great majority of the victims of this violent extremism are other Muslims. That doesn't mean it isn't religiously motivated.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
And in terms of questioning whether it is unreasonable to expect May's fearful ideas will be a negative for society, consider that the UK already has laws that allow people to be arrested for making off-colour jokes. (In this case, he was let off with a 'caution').
Yeah, sorry, but that is not a world anybody should want to live in. We already have too much security theatre and big brother is listening issues.
You don't find a difference between what we consider a mental health issue (which absofrickenlutely has a lot of news alerts) and people actively recruiting and brainwashing people to commit murder? You counter schizophrenia with medication, and maybe you can terrorism by going after the propagandists.
Where did I say there was no difference? They can be very different but still have similarities. If mental health is a factor in non-terrorist guy killing a bunch of people why isn't it a factor in terrorist guy killing a bunch of people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nage Waza
I can't tell if I am being trolled.
Whatever dude, grow up. If you can't respond to someone's posts without accusing them of trying to get a reaction for their own jollies, then don't respond at all please.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Honestly Photon it's just sort of hard to figure out what you're trying to say... it sure sounds like you're suggesting that a person being motivated by their belief that God wants them to behave in a certain way is comparable to a person being motivated by the belief that he can talk to flora and that trees are telling him to do violence to others. So if that's not what you meant, I'm confused too, apparently.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Pretty much sums up the average politician in most countries. A little non-committal here, a little more there, nobody can tell that you didn't answer the question. This lady was just an idiot. While not many including myself are fans of Trump, he sometimes has a brash aspect I appreciate because he isn't your classic politician. This lady just ended her career with that interview. Good job from the interviewer.
Except there are hundreds of examples of her making mistakes and she has been an MP for 30 years. Just search Dianne Abbot on youtube and you could spend hours on her #### ups.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to northcrunk For This Useful Post:
The ability to spread religious extremism that advocates killing people is pretty low on my list of things worth preserving... even for "near zero" impact.
We're not talking about trading healthcare, education, gender equality, or critical discourse here. In fact, we might even get to enhance them.
Also, the assumption whatever the UK comes up with would have to be a major civil liberties infringement and your assumptions with regards to where I feel the balance needs to lie simply for pointing out that there is a balance to be had suggests that you are the one who is arguing from a position of fear.
This is brilliant SebC, you nailed it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flamenspiel For This Useful Post:
So if that's not what you meant, I'm confused too, apparently.
EDIT: And thanks, that's a much better way of pointing out that I'm not making my point well enough rather than accusing me of trolling.
I'm not talking about motivations. If people are injured or killed by violence, the mental path they took to arrive at the point of being able to commit that violence doesn't matter to the victims.
I'm talking about society's response and the premise that there should be an expectation of zero incidents of terrorist violence. There's no expectation that there be zero incidents of murder is there? A politician can campaign on reducing violent crime, but not on eliminating it altogether; everyone would see that for what it is, an empty promise to try and garner votes. Campaigning on eliminating violence from terrorism is the same, it can be reduced, but I don't think it's possible to eliminate it while having a free and open society.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I'm not talking about motivations. If people are injured or killed by violence, the mental path they took to arrive at the point of being able to commit that violence doesn't matter to the victims.
But it matters to society.
A white man in Alabama kills a black man in a dispute over money.
The Ku Klux Klan orchestrates and carries out the abduction of a black man and lynches him on the lawn of a black church.
Do you really think politicians and the justice system should regard the two as essentially the same?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
I'm not talking about motivations. If people are injured or killed by violence, the mental path they took to arrive at the point of being able to commit that violence doesn't matter to the victims.
But of course it's crucially important to our moral reaction, as well as to our practical law enforcement response. Depending on the motivations, we can either expect that it's not ever going to happen again (or won't happen frequently; there aren't a lot of people out there who think trees can tell them to do things) or that it almost certainly will.
Quote:
I'm talking about society's response and the premise that there should be an expectation of zero incidents of terrorist violence. There's no expectation that there be zero incidents of murder is there?
So the whole tree thing was a bit of a red herring I guess? I'm just still not clear how it's related to your point, but maybe it wasn't crucial to what you were saying.
I think that there's a similar sort of expectation in the two realms - that is, I don't really think that anyone expects that we'll be able to completely eliminate all terrorist activity any more than they think we'll eliminate murder. But where there are apparent options to reduce harm, people have an expectation that those options will be looked at and if thought appropriate, implemented. I don't see a big difference here.
Quote:
A politician can campaign on reducing violent crime, but not on eliminating it altogether; everyone would see that for what it is, an empty promise to try and garner votes. Campaigning on eliminating violence from terrorism is the same, it can be reduced, but I don't think it's possible to eliminate it while having a free and open society.
I agree, but there are things that could be done that aren't being done. Though to be fair, not all of those are governmental actions, as I think the biggest gains are to be made within Muslim communities themselves.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
A white man in Alabama kills a black man in a dispute over money.
The Ku Klux Klan orchestrates and carries out the abduction of a black man and lynches him on the lawn of a black church.
Do you really think politicians and the justice system should regard the two as essentially the same?
I agree it matters to society and I didn't say that the two should be treated the same in all ways.
And that's an interesting parallel I'll have to think about that.
Racially motivated violence happens, but we don't see calls to block those who perpetrate that violence from entering the country. We don't see politicians campaigning on banning racial violence perps. People accept that racial violence is part of having an integrated society and that we have to work on making it better, which contrasts to the response to violence from terrorists.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
