| Devils Halo | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 05:08 pm 
All it took was a ignorant, wanna be film producer to get the Middle East and a few other countries all hyped up. What is with the hate towards America? This great nation has done more GOOD than evil in the history of the World. We have given more aide and help to other countries. We spend more $$$$ on foreign help than our OWN people! I would love to see an attempt or invasion on American soil. Please is you don't want American help or you enjoy your own people being murdered, raped, or ruled by dictatorship. Then please don't ask for the UNITED STATES help....post by a proud pissed of American....just saying |
| Khome y Peng | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 05:30 pm
It's pretty well established that there isn't another nation capable of attacking the United States at this point in history. (except for terrorists acts)
Russia seems to be only able to engage in regional attacks, and China rests with an impenetrable defense.
The question is, does everybody in the middle east really want our help, or are they angered by the presence of western culture taking root in their country? (note the KFC's burning down)
The dictatorships all started collapsing during the Arab spring, that is the problem. This is a power vacuum, and when that happens pandemonium results. If anything, the dictators provided stability in a region that we were able to work with and understand for the most part, kind of like the USSR. (the 90s were absolute chaos for Russia)
I'm not surprised in the least that this violence and chaos is happening now. |
| Luke | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 07:22 pm
Transitional States are breeding grounds for dissent. They're "Civilized" Civil-wars with Multiple revolutions all happening at once. this allows any splinter group to yell out their beliefs and a confused people that are new to their freedom are receiving an influx of new ideas that are confusing with each other.
It is possible that the Unrest could spread into civil war in a few of them like it did in Somalia |
| Khome y Peng | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 08:25 pm
Luke <--- Ditto |
| Devils Halo | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 08:32 pm
I like your comments guys and both of you are correct. Freedom is the most priceless feeling and like you guys stated can be very overwhelming. Please forgive me if I insulted anyone or seemed like a bigot. That wasn't my intention, but there are moments I get frustrated. Hopefully these emotion pouring throughout the East don't turn into anything to ugly. god knows it could get very, very ugly. Again guys you put up valid responses. |
| Crafty | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 10:18 pm
The extreme fanatical muslims are not a stupid people whatever else we may deem them. They jump at any opportunity to bay for western heads to roll, literally, using any excuse to fan the flames. It should not be surprising if it is proved the film in question was in fact made by them for just this purpose.
There are reports of people getting paid to riot, rent-a-mob. It's what they desire, fervour and the chance to gain the moral highground. They are not really cavemen living in the year 250AD, they know it is irrational to kill because someone insults the Prophet. But, it rallies the troops, causes the war they so desire.
See, it's like warring with Wendy, the US can listen to her endless rants and put up with her minor skirmishes OR it can go to war and get bogged down in trash talk, politics and a fight that costs a fortune without gaining anything.
So which route do we choose?
I vote we start using their own tactics, highlighting their brutality and murder to non combatants, basically make them look so bad opinion wants nothing to do with them. Bullies will get their upcomance.
I know, naive aren't I, but I remind you I have lots more years of using my naivety than most of you. |
| Devils Halo | Saturday, September 15, 2012 - 11:45 pm
Very true Crafty...that was my original thought process. To me it seems these Muslims are so starved for attention that they will do just about anything. If they are so high on Ala why don't they practice his beliefs. Maybe they are the evil ones who only want war? Personally I would rather turn the whole area into glass, but that isn't gods message nor humane. Wishful thinking though. |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 16, 2012 - 02:09 am
...however having a military presence/infrastructure in the middle east only gives them a target, economic interest in their nations gives an unfair advantage to their argument that we are just trying to profit from their resources. It's a loosing argument because this is really a question of the western presence in the Muslim world.
I mean really, if the general consensus is cut off all ties, why the hell are there KFC's in Lebanon and Cinnabons in Libya? Let's get out of dodge people! Let's design our own "prime directive" avoid contact with less technologically advanced societies until they reach our levels, then we will start talking. Simple as that. Nobody said we HAD to trade with them. We don't NEED their oil, right? It's a finite resource anyway, and the Saudi leadership knows (and denies) that they are in their second half of their supply. I know the oil supply in the middle east tends to be of the "sweet" variety, and that the north american "sour" requires more refinement, but we will deal with it. Embassies shut, bases closed, and keep a close eye. (long time ties such as Libya and Tunisia with Italy for example will have to stay, not our problem).
Ok? ok, done deal. (and nobody was offended in the process) |
| maclean | Sunday, September 16, 2012 - 12:43 pm
Amen, and if (e.g.) Christians, rednecks, conservatives, or (insert your favorite stereotype here) etc., rioted and took heads every time an offensive reference was made about them (us) in some film, the world would be in a constant state of bloodshed. It's time for the Muslims to get over themselves. This is not racist, it's just tough love. Time for them to grow up, the entire world just ain't gonna love everyone all the time. That's life. Suck it up and be men about it.
On the home front, I ask, just what is it going to take for the U.S. to finally cut off aid and comfort to these enemies?? If you keep giving candy to the baby every time he screams, what's he going to do? Keep screaming, that's what. |
| Crafty | Sunday, September 16, 2012 - 01:38 pm
I note that Pres. Obamas office has as good as told the Isrealis that they are on their own with Iran. Good job I say. I don't reckon that will deter Israel though, but the US has drawn a line saying that it wont be the worlds policeman/bully anymore.
4 more years for Obama please. |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 16, 2012 - 06:27 pm
It's not just a matter of aid going to some of these countries, its a little more reciprocal than that. We do benefit from our presence there.
And Israel needs to be on good behavior also.. |
| Lorelei | Monday, September 17, 2012 - 01:26 am
Pfft.... If Obama gets reelected, be prepared for me to move in wif you and Mrs. Crafty, old man. lol You still want Obama reelected now???? ha ha ha |
| Drew | Monday, September 17, 2012 - 07:39 am
I think the original argument is very valid point from a bystander point of view. If you consider the values of the country you will see the frustration.
Iraq is a shining example, we spent billions of dollars there, we spent billions of dollars fixing it, but who benefitted? The obvious response is that the citizens of Iraq, and we can presume to believe that the well being of the average citizen did improve, but who else? It's far less common knowledge that Halliburton's profits have DOUBLED! The largest shareholder of Halliburton is Dick Cheney. This information implies an alarming FACT. I don't use opinions the facts just fall into place here, and you can decide how to take it. Our country is willing to sell out it's country for commercial gain, is an opinion, that one can access from this, and I don't care if you believe that or not. Throw in the truth that profitable corporations can not exist in unstable countries, the reason we don't outsource to Africa. Rebuilding countries so KFC's can sell their garbage is part of an agenda.
This situation is not an isolated situation, similiar acts from the US and Europe happen all throughout history. These completely different values pretty much have to breed cognitive dissonance. Really doesn't it? |
| Crafty | Monday, September 17, 2012 - 10:44 pm
Innit |
| Khome y Peng | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 03:30 am
It does seem ridiculous that this is all happening over some cheap ass video made for youtube off all places.
Facebook toppled the middle eastern dictators, youtube provided a voice for more hatred. We live in powerful times. Considering all of that, it is more important than ever to consider our words, and take ownership and responsibility for our actions.
I took a pulse of opinion on comments on Yahoo news threads, and from what I saw, stupid hatred is not exclusive to just foreign countries. |
| Serpent | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 06:42 am
C'mon man! You cant believe that some goofy youtube video had anything to do with this! Its simple, if you want to find an excuse to fight, you will find one easily. There is no doubt that there are a plethora of videos, songs, comments, pictures etc.... that could be used as an excuse to fight. |
| Khome y Peng | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 07:10 am
I wouldn't say excuse, rather it was the one catalyst that ignited the fire, and there has been allot of anger fuming before that. |
| Drew | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 08:31 am
Values are real strong guys. I tried to use an alternative example, but I'll try another. The Colbert Report was just on, and he had an author from Harvard on, talking about the civil war, referencing the gruesome effects of the civil war. I think I'm going to read that book. I bring that up, because it is something we can relate to a little easier about the value differences people hold. Not only the value of socio economic differences, but also what our emphasis on human life is, how important progress is, civil rights are, etc. People of your own country have very different values that people fight for or against all the time. Women Sufferage, Civil Rights, Revolutionary War, Civil War, Cold War, Vietnam War, are examples of not threatening circumstances but oppositions of values. Whether it be communism, civil liberties, or social liberty expansion they were all acts of unity against an oppisition with strong contradicting values.
With that said, The Arab Springs situation could have been a mere tool to rally forces against their opposition. In other words an excuse. But what is an excuse, if an excuse is simply a way to raise morale for a current value is it justified? The situation is complex, the Arabic people aren't allowed any visual or audio represntation of their profit, and yet an outside culture uses it vulgarly. This is so incredibly distasteful. Imagine for a moment Christians aresentenced to death for the casual use of saying Jesus's name. Then the ummm... Jewish people CG'd Jesus having an all male sexual encounter with 5-6 dudes, what would the christian population do? The severity of their religious doctrines are very intense. And members against their very existance performed an act simply to offend. This is incomprehensible for them.
Futhermore, an individual thats behind this was also an individual that burned the Quar'an to bait more hostility. This is an unamerican act, American's have the freedom to practice any religion, anyone who acts against that practices attacks against our civil liberties gaurenteed by the 1st amendment. And aren't everyone supposed to be gaurentted life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness?
Now I'm not trying to justify their actions, only try to broaden the prespective of the group here. Whether the issue, is past American political situation, Military situation, Diplomatic situation, trade situation, or religious situation their values are different, and America has been exploited and terrorizing many Arabic nations for over 50 years. |
| Scarlet | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 10:29 am
I disagree, burning the Koran is a very American act. I believe it has been the case that Americans burned American flags on multiple occasions. In fact, I would be EXTREMELY surprised and disappointed if bibles have never been burned or otherwise desecrated by Americans... or any symbol of anything for that matter.
\o/
Free speech forever!
Death to all who oppose! |
| sbroccoli | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 10:45 am
The rioting and killing over the socalled Mohammad movie is just a sick excuse for revolutionaries who want to create theocratic nations with dictatorship.
There's nothing in neither that amateurish movie nor in the notorious Mohammad cartoons that could justify such a violent reaction.
And as far as I'm concerned, they can burn all the western flags and bibles they like. It's only textiles and paper.
It's a bigger offense IMO to insinuate that they are better humans than us because they have a superior religion.
That's racism in disguise if you ask me. |
| Crafty | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 11:25 am
And some people STILL insist that religion isn't the root of all evil!
Every theology seeks the same goals in more or less the same way, with a moral standard for living and a desire to understand God's purpose. Even science strives to find 'Gods' purpose, just they dont use the word God.
So why are Humans so dumb as to believe that their way is the right way? Surely they are all equally valid, excepting maybe some lunatic fringe cults who tend to stick to their own anyway.
I reckon this 'my way is best' attitude is so ingrained in our nature that it refuses to be rationalised. Now I dont limit this to radical Muslims, Islam but to Extreme Christians, Siehks, and every philosophy you can think of. Scientologists and the Tea Party spring to mind ;)
Anyway, the tipping point is being reached here. Either the more enlightened people step up to the plate and get people realising we all want the same thing, or we have to fight the mother of all fights about it before we realise what the tarnation we are doing.
History indicates the latter path unfortunately.
Lets hope I'm wrong. |
| sbroccoli | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 08:27 pm
Religion is not the snake here. If people would actually follow the spirit in their religions, all those conflicts would never happen.
Not even islam encourages killing, looting and assaults of random strangers. |
| Crafty | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 10:19 pm
They sure are calling for death for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. In fact death has occured over it already.
The belief in revenge for the insults stems from the Koran doesn't it (and I ask that sincerely because I am not a scholar of the Koran) or at least some interpretation of what the Koran says.
You remember Salmon Rushdie?
I'm not just saying Islam either, some absolute crap has been interpreted from the Bible too. It has it's own cross to bear.
^^^ see what I did there  |
| Crafty | Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 10:23 pm
They sure are calling for death for insulting the Prophet Mohammed. In fact death has occured over it already.
The belief in revenge for the insults stems from the Koran doesn't it (and I ask that sincerely because I am not a scholar of the Koran) or at least some interpretation of what the Koran says.
You remember Salmon Rushdie?
I'm not just saying Islam either, some absolute crap has been interpreted from the Bible too. It has it's own cross to bear.
^^^ see what I did there |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 12:05 am
"The extreme fanatical muslims are not a stupid people"
they actually are quite idiotic they practice flying planes by giving eachother piggy back rides is what i heard...not to mention their education system
theres some very smart guys but i imagne most of them are just stupid pawns
religion is a sad thing |
| Jiang Hu Warrior | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 12:36 am
while some might find the above amusing of sorts, we dont, the last thing simcountry needs is so called anti islamic stuff here! (alex keep it to yourself please, the same goes for anyone else) |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 02:17 am
are you accusing me of being racist? if you are you are incorrect |
| Drew | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 08:14 am
See this free speech thing I don't understand. How come when someone is verbally harassed about sexual orientation they get in trouble for it, yet people can defend this as free speech? The latter and topic of this discussion had the intended results come true. An act to breed hate and will result in murder is innocent under the prospect of free speech? Telling someone you will shoot them is a crime, and that is punishable but indirectly placing the cards isn't? There is no freedom with this kind of free speech! |
| Scarlet | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 02:19 pm
I'll defend anything except slander/libel as free speech.
Anything.
Doesn't mean I'm against using said free speech as evidence of conspiracy to commit murder or any crime for that matter.
Of course, I don't think it should be a crime to hate anyone for any reason or to spread what we honestly believe about anyone or anything to others. Killing someone and hating someone are not the same thing.
P.S. Death to all who oppose freedom! Death to the thought police! |
| Crafty | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 05:21 pm
I think you guys are confused.
You can't be the catalyst of a reaction and claim to have no relation to it.
In fact removing the catalyst seems a very sensible solution to preventing the reaction. How else do you fight fire without removing the fuel, oxygen or heat? A million analogies can be thought of here.
Incitement to riot or murder (use a wide definition of riot here) is most certainly a crime in our society and so it should be, it's a moral crime and should be thought of as such race wide.
Freedom of speech...pah, you throw that phrase around so much that it is in danger of becoming meaningless. |
| Drew | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 09:43 pm
Isn't this situation slander? |
| Crafty | Wednesday, September 19, 2012 - 11:20 pm
I dont know if you can slander someone 'post morte' can you?
Even if you can, the reputation you are slandering must have some tangible reason d'etre surely. Personally I dont rate religious belief as tangible. |
| maclean | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 12:37 am
Drew: in reference to a previous post, Jesus has already been portrayed as being a homosexual running around the countryside with his 12 homosexual partners. Yes, I find this misrepresentation utterly offensive, but I did not go out and start collecting scalps.
I suppose now the question could be asked, Am I enlightened by what I peceive to be the teachings of the Christ, and am being a forgiving person, or am I showing my lack of true deep belief by not going out and lifting some hair? |
| Crafty | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 01:01 am
You are not being incited to do so Mac, there is the difference.
Consider; if the Pope were to vehemently call for revenge against some blasphemy, do you think the worlds Catholics would ignore him? |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 01:39 am
maclean i find people to be all to easily offended....i feel like im one of the few people on this planet who excuse my platitudal immaturity gets their panties in a bunch over stupid shit i honestly dont give a fuck anymore when people are offended like crafty has said it has lost all meaning to me because people use it to much |
| Khome y Peng | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 02:38 am
The question of religion and faith comes down to two inescapable conclusions:
1. Everything has purpose, what we do will "echo in eternity", and we are fully responsible for our actions.
or
2. Everything is fundamentally absurd, we drift aimlessly through space, on a planet that is by chance, holding onto a dwarf star in the outermost region in an insignificant galaxy. A planet a mere 9 billion years old, indifferent to our fate.
I don't know which is more terrifying, but it's one of the two, and NOBODY knows for sure except for the dead. Those two people who just died this very second somewhere in the world, they know right now... |
| Scarlet | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 03:24 am
Haha, what a ridiculously narrow understanding of things!
I don't remember who said this, but "When confronted with two alternatives, take a third option."
Anyway, I'm not much for debating right now... but consider both your statements, then consider the fact that those are not mutually exclusive statements.
P.S. Thou shalt not suffer the censor to live! |
| Serpent | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 04:57 am
Is it possible that you may be defining religion in an incorrect way? For example many say religion is 'Catholic', 'Islam', 'Baptist', 'Hindu' etc... When in reality all religion is is a set of beliefs or way of doing things. A person is religious even when they are not part of an organized religion.
Extremists in any sense is a bad thing. Many times those extremists (including those who claim to be Christian) give others who try to practice a common set of values or beliefs (ie... religion) a bad reputation. For example if somebody was part of a religion that prohibited the consumption of beef, and you saw that person who claimed adherence to that religion eating a triple cheeseburger at Wendy's... what would you think? Obviously you'd think that he cant be a member of that religion. His actions obviously prove otherwise!
The same is true for all organized religions. No doubt there are Islamists that do not follow the actual beliefs and values that true Islam does. Just as there are many many who claim Christianity but do not follow the actual beliefs and values of true Christianity. Obviosuly there can be a whole other discussion on just what true Christianity is... as can be said for other religions or 'set of beliefs'! |
| maclean | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 07:49 am
Re: the Pope calling for a holy war: (Example)
I think in this day and age, his pronouncements would mostly fall on deaf ears, IMO. In the past, this was not so, of course (crusades, persecution of Jews and "heretics", etc.) I understand what you are saying, Crafty, I just don't think any leader of any (in this example) Christian sect has the clout to stir their followers to the extremes that would match the radical muslims that are constantly reacting to the smallest provocation all the time. And don't anybody tell me about Jim Jones or the Heaven's Gate bunch-- they were cults, and come under a seperate psychological evaluation.
I guess what is really getting my knickers in a knot is that appeasement has been tried before, with predictably grim results, but few if any seem to remember or care.
Alex, I agree, people are too easily offended. There is a time and place for taking offense, and defending one's beliefs and one's honor, but really, start cutting throats because someone 8000 miles away says that your prophet may not be everything he is cracked up to be? Some insecurity showing with this behavior, possibly... To paraphrase the Bard of Avon, "Methinks they doth protest too much" |
| Khome y Peng | Thursday, September 20, 2012 - 04:21 pm
"Haha, what a ridiculously narrow understanding of things!"
Sounds like extremist talk. In addition, if you could only come up with a third one, that only makes the number of your options slightly more.
You win. |
| Drew | Friday, September 21, 2012 - 08:00 am
Sorry Maclean I took a bit to answer your question. But I do like Alex's response to that. But I will follow it up, cuz thats what I do, last word addict boom.
This is good to because it goes into the extremist conversation. So should these people being easily offended, is extemism wrong? Ummm... well it depends. It comes down to this, why are we all here. People can answer this in a smaller less relevant way saying I like to play SC so I do what I like. This doesn't answer the question but convolutes the question. It shifts our values into personal valuessocietal values, short term valueslong term values. In other words as amenities are present options are presented. How closely one follows their religious beliefs begins to errode with dreams and aspirations and progress and prospects.
So after all that, what do you live for? If you live 99.8% to uphold the values of your religion, then they didn't do anything wrong, they stayed within the action of their values. I question any religious person who sees the actions of this situation as wrong to question their religious committment, should they react the same?
Now an another note, people should practice their values, but be ready to deal with the societal implications (laws, diplomatic reactions, etc). And as a nation we should not allow people to be religiously persecuted, and religious politicians should never make any notion or policy to benefit religion. But that is another topic entirely. |
| asgard5144 | Friday, September 21, 2012 - 03:20 pm
After i hear that they killed are Ambassador
and trying to take are embassys
Go to Arabchat.com
see people takeing about the death of the usa and how bad we Are and how to kill us or something
use a translated but cant kept up
Attempt to troll, don't know Arabic
say "A pig fucked Mohammed on the ass"
Banned
Get IP Address put on FBI's watchlist
=( |
| Keto | Friday, September 21, 2012 - 03:56 pm
Wasn't it an Arab, in the US, who initially made the video? |
| Lorelei | Friday, September 21, 2012 - 05:46 pm
What in the world?!!!!!!!!! Ewwwwww the stuff I read in posts. |
| Scarlet | Friday, September 21, 2012 - 07:13 pm
I figure if there's anything worth killing each other over, it's differences in core values. |
| Khome y Peng | Saturday, September 22, 2012 - 08:39 pm
Nothing is worth killing over |
| Devils Halo | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 12:58 am
WOW fellow simcountry(ism). I actually read every post and many of you have valid reaction, and some are well thought out responses. My intent wasn't meant to encourage any racism, sexism, or any other verb followed with "ISM". My comment was broad and didn't have a specific target unless you count "Radical(s)".
I also notice allot comments with the word Kill. Yes we can be politically correct when using the word "Kill". To kill something is to end life, but if I am not mistaken that isn't against the "The TEN COMMANDMENTS". I believe that the 5th or 6th COMMANDMENT is They shall not "murder".
Yes the use of a word or interpretation can be damaging or misleading. MAN is the sinner, the evil presence who in most given chances seeks POWER. May that power be intended for better or the worse for mankind is still determined.
The real question is; What is the agenda of the person, group with "Power"? |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 03:01 am
there are some 2 billion catholics in the world if the pope called to wage a holy war im sure it wouldnt fall on deaf ears....it would probably be a similar result of what happens to islamic extremists they are a very small demographic themselves |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 03:02 am
btw religion is wrong |
| maclean | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 05:46 am
Khome: sorry, but you err. It is worth killing, if necessary, to preserve your family and your life, and by extension, your country, if it is being threatened. I am not a warmonger, but heaven have mercy on whoever threatens me or mine, because I will be fresh out.
And as Patton said, "It's not about dying for your country, it's about making the other bastard die for his".
Alex: that is a pretty broad statement; i ask if you will explain further. |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 06:00 am
it is mans very first attempt to understand the world and like most first things it is filled with holes prejudices and misconceptions |
| Scarlet | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 06:52 am
Khome, I don't mean this personally... more of a rhetorical question:
If you don't think anything is worth killing over, will you kindly lay down and die when your core values are challenged?
I don't mean intellectually challenged like me saying "Killing is okay," I mean actually challenged by someone actually doing "Killing is okay."
Freedom exists. Please understand that I'm not talking about some vague notion of political freedom. I believe that we are essentially and fundamentally free by simply being human, by making choices, by making decisions. I'm not saying we should be free, I'm saying we are free to have any values we wish, to subscribe to any beliefs we wish, to choose to do anything we wish. (blah, blah, within the context of what is logically, physically, technologically, personally possible)
I understand that we can disagree, I understand that at the core there are some value systems we choose that are entirely coherent yet different from the value systems of other.
No matter how much you argue there are just some things that cannot be resolved if you cannot even agree on the source of knowledge... How do you use faith to argue with reason? How do you use reason to argue with faith?
If you cannot agree on what the source of knowledge is, how can you settle differences in what is right and what is wrong? You seem very certain that you are correct, but how do you prove it to someone who doesn't have the same understanding of proof or of reality?
And if you cannot convince someone to agree that it is good to leave you alone, what do you do? If we agree on certain fundamentals... specifically, if we can agree that reason is the only appropriate source of knowledge and we exist within an objective and shared reality from which to draw evidence, we can debate and maybe convince each other to hold some values. At least, we have the framework to do so even though we may have different interpretations of events or experiences. It isn't inevitable that we agree: different experiences, observations, perspectives, information, etc. may get in the way of agreement... but we can agree that there is some correct way of viewing things that doesn't depend on what we believe.
But if we cannot agree on something so fundamental, how can any mutual understanding be reached? Coincidence seems the only way. So here we are, either we abandon our notions of reason or they abandon their notions of faith. That's what we are talking about. You're viewing it from the perspective that we are absolutely correct, but that loses part of the context because they are viewing it from the perspective that they are correct. We are only correct to the extent reason and not faith is the appropriate source of knowledge. Don't take that for granted, recognize and understand it.
There is no way to prove reason is an appropriate source of knowledge to someone who disagrees without both of us at least agreeing that there is an objective and shared reality. There is no way to prove we live in an objective and shared reality to someone who disagrees without both of us agreeing that reason is an appropriate source of knowledge. Notice the circularity? I figure anyone who looks around sees this, but we are FREE. We can't be forced to accept anything we don't want to accept. We can't be forced to recognize anything we don't want to recognize. We can't be forced to believe anything we don't want to believe.
If there is disagreement on either count, there is no shared ground by which to establish a mutual understanding.
If we already disagree and we cannot arrive at a mutual understanding because of these differences and we both believe that we are correct, conflict is inevitable.
We are free. They are free. There is nothing that can change this. They can believe, think, and do whatever the hell they like for whatever reason they like... but I can as well.
If they want to start shit because of their beliefs, that's fine... but I don't got to accept their values and I don't got to lay down and die because of their values. They don't need to do so either.
Please understand... there will be no peace, unless one side submits to the valuations of the other. There is no reason why either side should do so within the context of each worldview. In fact, there is no reason anyone should do anything, save they think it's worth doing, within the context of human freedom.
Personally, I think reason is the only appropriate source of knowledge and that we live an objective and shared world... and I think that based on this, there is technically no correct "absolute" value system. I think that if we decide that we want to coexist with others, the best and most basic way of realizing that is to agree to recognize and respect each other's freedom. I think that if someone refuses to recognize and respect another's freedom, they cannot coexist with others. Don't start shit, there won't be shit. You know?
Should you coexist with others? That's your choice.
What should be done about those who cannot coexist with you? That's your choice.
Forcing them to submit to your value system is an option if, and that's a pretty big if, they can be convinced, debated, threatened, etc.
Killing them is merely the most complete solution.
P.S. The reason I say "I figure if there's anything worth killing each other over, it's differences in core values," is because most other things can be peacefully resolved for a better outcome than forcibly resolving them, I'm not convinced this can be peacefully resolved at all for the aforementioned reasons. |
| Crafty | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 01:10 pm
Bull.
There is only one 'race', the human race. And this is becoming more and more so by the day, via the multi-culturism we all see around us. Whats this 'others views'?
Most people would agree on moral rights and wrongs be they Christian, Musim, Buddist or sith. It's only a few extremist that act otherwise, though they probably would agree what they do is morally wrong.
Unfortunately, the very few who do cause so much grief get huge exposure, so we perceive a big evil force.
So the conclusion? The renegades of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog.
i) self preservation is a reason to kill.
ii) preservation of the human race is another.
iii) touching my car is the third. |
| Scarlet | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 04:57 pm
Demonstration:
I do not accept popular opinion as a valid source of knowledge.
Most people agree that X is true.
Therefore, X is true?
The logical structure is bunk... anything most people believed was true would be true. If most people believed god was real, then god would be real. If most people believed slavery wasn't wrong, then slavery wouldn't be wrong.
Sorry, bro.
Within the context of my belief system, you must provide solid reasoning and evidence to convince me to change any particular understanding. If you cannot convince me, that's fine... as long as you don't try to force me to take action based upon your views. This is true within the context of what I believe... maybe you disagree. You can accept popular opinion as a valid source of knowledge and refuse to accept reasoning as a valid source of knowledge. You can accept popular opinion as a secondary valid source of knowledge with reason as a primary... or the other way around. I can't MAKE you agree on what is a valid source of knowledge.
Also, I'm not saying we can't agree on particulars without agreeing on other stuff... I'm saying that IF we do not agree on a particular principle AND that principle directly forces some action or inaction that is contrary to the other's beliefs AND we do not share some common ground with which to form a mutual understanding, THEN conflict is inevitable.
I'm also saying that because we are free to believe, desire, and do anything we like, it is possible that the three previous conditions are true.
I'm not even necessarily saying that this is the case with these particular current events. I'm saying that IF those previous three conditions are the case, THEN the only outcomes are submission or death.
I'm definitely NOT stating quantities or generalizing anyone of any religion. I'm say that IF those previous three conditions were the case for ANY individual, THEN ONLY for those individuals that qualify, the only outcomes are submission or death.
You need to realize, this isn't a question of what is right and what is wrong. This is a question of what is the case... and what that implies.
---------------
Furthermore, don't confuse "extremism" with "shit you don't agree with." You can't simultaneously hold an extremist position and decry extremism:
"The renegades of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog."
Or do you propose to compromise and rein in some behavior that you disagree with and allow other behavior? Or rein in some renegades and not others? Or rein in renegades part of the time and not other times?
Let's try this on for size:
"The [infidels] of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog." -- Fixed.
Let me propose an idea to you... extremism is the only way to practice your beliefs. If there is something wrong with taking s set of beliefs to the extreme, then maybe there is something wrong with the beliefs. Food for thought. |
| Khome y Peng | Sunday, September 23, 2012 - 05:36 pm
That was a very long way to say "lets agree to disagree" |
| Serpent | Monday, September 24, 2012 - 02:50 am
I respectfully disagree with some of those statements. Maybe I dont understand exactly the point you are trying to make, but anyway as I understand what you said here is why I disagree... The reason is that if what you say is correct then there is in fact no right or wrong. In which case you can do anything without doing anything 'wrong'. There is behavior that is extreme regardless of what religion or set of beliefs you hold dear.
For example... (obviously this is a harsh example, but it makes the point) pedophilia. There is no excuse for ANY reason that can be imagined that would excuse such behavior. Therefore if your religion or set of beliefs allow for pedophilia, then your religion or set of beliefs is obviously extreme. The same is true for many other behaviors.
I understand that each individual has the right to do and believe what they want, but not when it interferes with others right to do the same. If I believe I should kill you, that obviously interferes with your right to live, therefore if my belief is that you should die it would be wrong and extreme because it interferes with your rights.
But in my opinion the world has become so terrified of pleasing everyone that many are to afraid to voice what they feel is wrong and right. "Political Correctness" has become the scourge of humankind. Long gone are the days where you were responsible for your actions. Now when somebody does do something that is in fact wrong its somebody else's fault like parents, education, environment, genetics etc... |
| Crafty | Monday, September 24, 2012 - 02:59 pm
Global society knows what is right and what is wrong.
It cannot be defined by logic, arguement, proof whatever. So Scarlets convoluted comment above is null and void.
Like I said, the vast majority of all peoples would agree that murder is wrong. If there is a rogue element then it needs to be forced to conform to the majoritys consensus.
Yes, I can agree with the political correctness problem 100% |
| Scarlet | Monday, September 24, 2012 - 03:40 pm
Well, let me see if I can simplify and unpack it at the same time.
Yes, it is 100% true that I'm saying that there is no absolute right or wrong. I'm saying that relative rights and wrongs exist within the context of what we believe is valuable. It is worth noting that I'm not taking it from the standpoint of "there is someone else to blame".
However, the point I touched on at the end of the first long wall of text and definitely could have elaborated more:
"I think that if someone refuses to recognize and respect another's freedom, they cannot coexist with others."
The essential argument is that while no absolute notion of right and wrong can be proven, the conditions for coexistence can be proven so that if coexistence is valuable, then those conditions must be met.
In order for a society to function, the concession that coexistance is valuable is a necessary prerequisite. While I'm not saying that it can be demonstrated to be universally valuable, it's value as a means to an end can be demonstrated in many cases of people's differing ends.
I think it useful to make the distinction between something that has value as a means to an end and something that has value as an end in itself to be useful. A means to an end has an objectively demonstrable value because it's value is determined by relating its effectiveness at achieving the end. However, the problem with this method of determining value is that ultimately, you will either reach a dead end (the end in itself) or fall into circular reasoning. (Ex. The best way of getting in space is to use a rocket, but why the hell do we want to get in space?) People can disagree on the details of this, but ultimately there is a correct answer that is true no matter the person exists. The end in itself, the thing worth doing for no other reason than doing it, is not the same thing for everyone. Some people want to worship god, some people want to serve others, some people want to raise kids, some people want to restore classic cars, some people want to build building, some people want to play flash games, some people want to kill other people. It doesn't even need to be a single thing per person. However, the type of value that these things have is solely based on the type of value that someone gives these things. It's an entirely subjective value, the correct answer depends upon who is making the statement.
So if this is the case and we live in such a world, we're no longer looking through a lens of right and wrong. We've moved beyond them so to speak.
So let's look back to coexistence using the example of someone who likes to restore cars.
In order to restore cars, there are a certain set of conditions that must be met. If I determine it is a valuable end, I'll try to meet these conditions because I want to restore cars. Now, I need to have enough resources, I need to have enough health, and I need to be left to my own devices to actually do it. This is true of all ends in themselves. (*cough*lifelibertyproperty*cough*)
However... maybe you can see where I'm going with this... let's see the example of killing others. I need to fulfill the same set of conditions as restoring cars... BUT the end itself violates the conditions for another person. This is a contradictory end.
In one example, we can agree to create a situation where the set of conditions are mutually held in esteem so that we can go about achieving our different ends. On an individual and society level, we can achieve our ends individually or cooperatively without the need for creating conflict that jeopardizes the maintenance of this set of conditions for ourselves. The fulfillment of such an end doesn't necessarily incentivize others into preventing our fulfillment of such an end.
In the other, we cannot do so without some outside group for which we don't hold the same conditions in mutual esteem. On an individual and societal level, we create a situation where we force others into conflict and creates the need for them to deny us the conditions we require to achieve our ends. The fulfillment of such an end necessarily incentivizes others into preventing our fulfillment of such an end.
This is what is meant by contradictory ends. I intend this to demonstrate that respecting each other's freedom is the only means to coexistence AND that coexistence is valuable for the vast majority of individual ends even within the context of nihilism in ethics.
The failure to recognize each other freedom is essentially self-destructive to any end, even if the end necessitates the failure to respect each other's freedom. By not respecting the freedom of others, we create a situation where they must not respect our freedom or forfeit their individual values.
Does this matter? Someone who enjoys killing may enjoy other things as well, so while I do not say that killing is wrong, I would say that in most cases someone who enjoys killing may see that it benefits the totality of their ends in themselves that they not go around killing people indiscriminately or perhaps they take some profession (I wonder which one I'm implying >_>) where they can achieve their end in itself in a manner which does not require they do so to anyone except those whose ends forced the issue.
So I would say that it is in the context of nihilism in ethics that negative liberty (not interfering with others) really makes sense as both an objective and non-contradictory value just about no matter what you believe or value. I did establish it previously in terms of it being non-contradictory and valuable for most subjective values, but I imagine that may not be enough... further evidence for reasons why such a position is best within this context is that it is (1) inclusive: which allows more people to take part in a society and also defend such a society, (2) incentivized: the reason for holding this position stems from any personal incentive one has for achieving almost any personal end(s) (3) realistic: the only 'losers' in such a situation are those who cannot achieve their ends peacefully, which are a danger to others in any situation.
Of course, I'm working within a partially nihilistic framework (in the sense that I'm assuming there is no pre-existing, absolute value outside what people value... yet not to the extent that I deny an objective reality or true knowledge). This is bothersome to many I imagine.
Now with the example of pedophilia, it is worth noting that I'm talking about negative liberty in the sense of requiring voluntary consent whenever you require an action from others. So we enter question of maturation and whether a child can even voluntarily consent to the act in question. However, this doesn't contradict the previous points. If the child cannot be said to be mature enough to voluntarily consent, then engaging in such an act definitely qualifies as refusing to recognize and respect another's freedom. However, many different countries and states have different understanding of the point where I child can be said to voluntarily consent to sexual acts. However, the definition of an adult is a very basic question and the general idea is clear enough that a child doesn't have the mental capacity required to voluntarily consent to anything. So if the child cannot voluntarily consent, an act of pedophilia qualifies as a contradictory end which I described earlier.
Going back to my previous statement: "I figure if there's anything worth killing each other over, it's differences in core values." I figure this is a good example: it's not worth killing each other over what would be a difference in definition when we agree on the core principle as it can be settled with reasoning and evidence, as in killing each other over the age of consent. It would be worth killing someone over what would be a difference in the core principle, as in whether it was okay to take advantage of children... and if the disagreement was with someone who refused to acknowledge altogether that children cannot be reasonably expected to consent, well, there's no hope for compromise.
In closing, it is for these reasons that I believe:
(1) Negative liberties should be valued insofar as they achieve the totality of our individual, subjective values best. They have value only as a means to these ends.
(2) Where they do not achieve those individual, subjective values best, it is because the value itself is contradictory and self-defeating. Basically, it necessitates retaliation by the other to the extent their individual, subjective values are threatened.
(3) Worth noting that I think negative liberty is the only idea that can be taken to the extreme without running into fundamental problems.
(4) In positing complete freedom, there is no way to deny complete responsibility. I am responsible for EVERYTHING that occurs as the result of my actions, whether I intended it or not. There is no factor that prevents my freedom to choose in any situation. Nothing you can do can make me choose to eat a lightbulb (for a light example). If I eat a lightbulb, the fact that you pointed a gun to my head is irrelevant. I still had freedom and chose to eat the lightbulb. There is no escape, no blame that will save me from the reality. Of course, I can attempt to deny reality... but that action itself can be demonstrated as problematic, in much the same manner failing to recognize another's freedom.
So in response to this: "But in my opinion the world has become so terrified of pleasing everyone that many are to afraid to voice what they feel is wrong and right."
I trust that I've elaborated enough where you can see that this is a much, much more developed form of nihilism than you may be used to. I'm not merely saying "there is no right and wrong", I'm saying that the underlying framework of understanding that is behind traditional notions of right and wrong, good and evil is fundamentally inadequate and inaccurate and in order to better achieve our own individual, subjective ends - the source of any notion of value and purpose - there are a set of conditions that we are better off promoting for everyone (and preventing the opposite of) whose value stems from each and every individual, subjective end rather than some arbitrarily posited principle.
And there is still no right or wrong.
Of course, I could probably explain better, but I think I did a pretty good job of making the whole position clear.
P.S.
"[God] knows what is right and what is wrong.
It cannot be defined by logic, arguement, proof whatever. So Scarlets convoluted comment above is null and void.
Like I said, [God] would agree that murder is wrong. If there is a rogue element then it needs to be forced to conform to [God's will]." |
| Crafty | Monday, September 24, 2012 - 04:33 pm
So I'm still not much clearer on what you are expounding.
It sounds to me that you can respect the right of extemists to destroy the World Trade Center, blow up buses in London, massacre many in Norway and many other examples.
You need to examine your principles Scarlet and talk from the heart not from some pseudo intellectual radical view point. That or you are one of the ones that need reining in. |
| Scarlet | Monday, September 24, 2012 - 06:19 pm
Okay, I'll just give the really simplified version:
Anyone who thinks something is right without logic, argument, or proof is fundamentally dangerous. All such people are dangerous... it doesn't matter if you take God or Global Consensus as the authority. I make no distinctions between a tyrant who demands that God's will be done and a tyrant who demands Society's will be done.
A society or government is worth living in only to the extent voluntary consent in the individual rights of life, liberty, and property is held sacred and above the demands of any government, group, or god.
All individuals who do not subscribe to these principles are better off destroyed, as permitting them to act against these principles poses a direct and fundamental threat to the very things we, as individuals, hold dear. There is no possibility of compromise without sacrificing these things.
This better? I got rid of some of the messy explanation of why I think this.
P.S. Death to the majoritarian! |
| Crafty | Monday, September 24, 2012 - 07:44 pm
It may be shorter but its no more correct.
I personally know if something is right or wrong without logic, arguement or proof. As do you really. It's a sort of how you know the consequences of your actions.
Quote:A society or government is worth living in only to the extent voluntary consent in the individual rights of life, liberty, and property is held sacred and above the demands of any government, group, or god.
And you say this in your next paragraph. The opposite of what you first say.
I think you are just being an antagonist so I wont feed your trolling any further. |
| Serpent | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 12:37 am
HaHa, I get lost in the length of text Scarlet. I appreciate the simpler (Or perhaps the 'dumbed down') version.
But I would argue that the great majority of what is right and wrong can be explained with simple logic and proof. |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 01:13 am
uhh i didnt read the whole thing but i think im getting the general drift of the conversation
"Anyone who thinks something is right without logic, argument, or proof is fundamentally dangerous. All such people are dangerous... it doesn't matter if you take God or Global Consensus as the authority. I make no distinctions between a tyrant who demands that God's will be done and a tyrant who demands Society's will be done. "
i agree with this completely.....if people believe in things based on prejudices or whims or an arbitrary "FEELING" weather it be god communism monstors or the chcocloate chip conspiracy then it makes sense that automatically they give that right to any other person which means
i can say i have a feeling that it is my duty to kill you or it is my duty to do anything i want because i have a feeling and you cant disagree with me
then this can become circular and you have complete anarchy |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 01:15 am
crafty i think your misinterpreting scarlets points |
| Drew | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 08:24 am
I read it all and I loved it!!!! I am a supporter of the general information scarlet is "expounding." I quoted that because full understanding of this concept requires actually quite a bit more detail. A concept I myself have rejected but entertained the idea of it, mostly because of the inadequacies I see with the objectivity of subjectivity, and the argument that reality is unknown. Far too abstract for me that nihilism thing. But if anyone wants a better understanding it seems as Scarlet likes Fokoh <spelling? and/or Neitsche and/or Lyotard.
But whatever I agree to most of it. I'll bring back up my example with Scarlet's explanation, to challenge Crafty's instant dismissal without any valid grounds for them.
Using Crafty's assumption that what the general world's concesses is what is right, is completely nonsensical, and insensitive. Most recognizable with "i) self preservation is a reason to kill. ii) preservation of the human race is another. iii) touching my car is the third." Your car is not worth a life, or many if the ocassion happens several times. But that's not the point. Some people's value systems puts things much higher then human life. As I said before if their belief in their version of Jesus is more important then the lives of everyone and everything they believe their actions are justifiable. WHO THE **** ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG!!!! That's pretty much the gist of all of this.
It's funny that I star that out to not offend anyone. But see that is a value of mine. Why should others be subjected to such things that combat their values? This is why I despise free speech. Americans, Europeons, Japenese tend to think they decide how people should think.
What you are implying is that we have the freedoms to be insensitive, cohersive, and/or blatently ignorant. But these all come with a price. If you believe we are globally multicultural then you must also believe that we shouldn't have freespeech. Because actions like this persecute people. There is no such thing as extreme, only a passionate counter-effect. I could go on as long Scarlet about how we formulate ideas, volitions, and judgements however it isn't neccessary.
So this is what happened, Americans, and Europeans continously attack the values of people that we don't understand. They like everyone else have the obligation to defend those values. If they do it they are not extremists those who don't understand are merely ignorant. If you are looking for a villian in the situation look at the people who intentially attack the values of like a Billion people, just to piss them off. Stupid pasture, stupid halliburton, stupid USSR weapons industry, stupid French Trade Commision, stupid medievel English aristrocrats, the list goes on and on.
So it comes down to this Crafty you may believe any assault on your car is an unjustifiable act worth more than your own life, if they think that about Mohommad who is the real villian of this situation, also which of those two are less rational?
But society should definately be more objective and understand these consequences, and should be there to ensure these situations don't happen.
I always like it when Scarlet posts, it is always a good read, even if never agrees with my point of vire |
| Crafty | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 10:26 am
Stupid boy, as I thought anyone would see, the car reference was a light hearted throw away comment. I can't believe you took it seriously.
I dont think your head is very clear Drew,
Quote:What you are implying is that we have the freedoms to be insensitive, cohersive, and/or blatently ignorant. But these all come with a price. If you believe we are globally multicultural then you must also believe that we shouldn't have freespeech.
where on earth do you get that from?
Listen, I'll do a Scarlet and try to make myself very clear:
It's very important, crucial even, that peoples can discuss their differing views, - have freedom of speech if you must further drag that expression in the gutter - but freedom of terrorism? mass murder? singular murder even? enslavery? forced rule? and all actions that are commonly accepted as 'wrong', No, there is no justification, in logic, reason, religion, for that.
Reasoned arguement, debate, and hell yeah, even the odd fight in parliaments, is the far better way to work things out, for all beliefs.
So quit being apologists for these groups that use fear as their only real weapon.
And bring our young men and women home from the middle east. We lost a young lad locally, para' Nicky Mason, and I'll tell you, it brings it home when you see his colleagues at the funeral in wheel chairs, burnt faces, limbs missing.
Justify that?! My arse. |
| Drew | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 08:16 pm
I got that from all the other things I've said. You quoted an intemedian response.
Trust me I did use the car thing light heartedly, I merely used it to reference my point. If I took it seriously I would have been much more aggressive.
The truth is what actions spawn terrorism, mass murder, slavery, and forced rule? What is commonly accepted has no relevance when it counters people values. Why do they care if you don't like the violence, and if they know you will retaliate, if their life is meaningless compared to defending their honor?
Only idiots go and fight a war against an oppressed people, no love for the troops.
Justify peeing on dead soldiers bodies, and running around at nigfht killing defenseless civilians. That's right freedom of speech. pfft, completely lacks morality
I do understand I often get side tracked, and things aren't always clear in my posts |
| Serpent | Tuesday, September 25, 2012 - 08:47 pm
I have no idea why this is so difficult for some to understand. A persons 'freedoms' should never impose upon the freedoms of others. Its as simple as that. No need for long posts.
When/if my freedoms impose upon your freedoms then I am an extremist. We do not have the right or ability to say whose freedoms are most important. Therefore, do w/e you want UNLESS it results in hardships for others. |
| Crafty | Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 01:06 am
Ah yes, but killing someone might not be considered as imposing upon anothers freedoms by some. Then what?
What ever you guys think, there is a written code of good and bad that is universally understood. This code is what religious books try to put into words through parables and tales of lore. They all boil down to the same thing. Just some misuse them to create...create...I dont know, what do they want to create?
So, if you have to stomp on someones freedoms to protect the freedoms of peoples on the whole, then you should go ahead and stomp. We all know what are true rights and freedoms deserved by any human, all know, black, white, muslim or jew.
Any plea of 'it's my right to digress from the common moral code' is just so much codswallop.
So that is that, this thread is finished. I declare it my right to be right and going against my right to be right, right upsets me, right? |
| Drew | Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 10:20 am
Sure as long as you realize that all previous aggression by the Europeon/American forces were violent by that force beforehand. So... I'm sure that right to defend themselves doesn't really apply. But you understand that so this thread is finished |
| Scarlet | Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 10:55 am
@Drew
Never heard of Lyotard or Fokoh... maybe you meant Foucault? In which case, all I know about him is he had a picture of a pipe with the caption, "This is not a pipe." It was cute, but not enough to read further.
The big three people I've read and liked would be Nietzsche, Rand, and Heidegger.
@Serpent
The problem of simple things is that they will be misunderstood. When we talk about rights are we talking about claim rights, liberty rights, negative rights, and/or positive rights? When we talk about freedom are we talking about personal, political, and/or economic freedom? When we talk about about freedoms not imposing on others, do we mean freedoms should never incur unasked for obligations or unasked for inconveniences? What qualifies as a hardship? Is hearing someone insult your god a hardship as Drew said? Or is requiring people to keep their mouth shut a hardship as I said? How do we differentiate between these cases?
I'm not saying this to be difficult or contrary... this is simply a problem with "simple" solutions. They tend to be ambiguous and lend themselves to a wide variety of viewpoints, some of which are mutually exclusive. What may seem like hairsplitting in discussion eventually leads to vastly different personal actions and institutional policies when put into practice.
@Crafty
Spoken like a true man of faith. You know what they want to create? A better world.
They're people doing what they think is right.
We're all people doing what we think is right.
The only question is whether or not we can coexist.
You can't stop people from "digress[ing] from the common moral code". You just don't have the ability to. You can try to convince, coerce, repress, or kill people who digress... but you simply can't stop them.
"So quit being apologists for these groups that use fear as their only real weapon."
I don't think you quite understand... fear is your only weapon as well. What do you think remains when you say there is no logic, argument, or proof? There is what the majority believes, and everyone better get with the program or die!
I'm just saying unless somebody makes it necessary to kill them, we're better off not doing so (for reasons elaborated earlier). I don't really care what you or they think is right.
We're not fighting monsters; we're fighting dedicated people fully committed to what they honestly believe. |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 10:00 pm
no we are fighting monstors who are good at controlling undereducated masses
but maybe thats just my perception
i think it has obviously become much to hard to coexist in this global world and more isolationist practices should be put into affect |
| Serpent | Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 10:52 pm
Words do not incur hardships of any kind no more than thoughts do! Speech cant be censored for the same reason thoughts cant be censored. Obviously if somebody speaks against someone elses beliefs or their God they may be insulted, but it does not incur a hardship on them.
This idea of not imposing on others freedoms/rights applies on the small scale from your relationships with your spouse, neighbors, workmates, classmates etc.. to the larger scale like countries and religions or differing sets of beliefs. Enjoy all the freedoms you desire as long as they don't interfere with others freedoms.
This is the same point Ive tried to make in other posts as well, this world has become so preoccupied with 'political correctness' that people are willing to take offense at somebody's words! I mean c'mon man! Whats next? Will we not even be allowed to think how we want out of fear of offending somebody?
I do think that for there to be true peace among all the worlds population there needs to be a common set of morals, values, beliefs etc... But I nor any other human has the ability or right to determine what that is. When a group of people decide that it is their right to determine what others should say and think and not that of the individual, then that is extremism. |
| Crafty | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:22 am
Quote:Sure as long as you realize that all previous aggression by the Europeon/American forces were violent by that force beforehand. So... I'm sure that right to defend themselves doesn't really apply.
I have no idea what that sentence means. Try it in coherent English.
Quote:We're not fighting monsters; we're fighting dedicated people fully committed to what they honestly believe.
You are completely trumped by Alexandrov Scarlet.
Quote:no we are fighting monstors who are good at controlling undereducated masses
I know instinctively what is right or wrong mostly, there may be one or two grey areas but...
As I'm sure you all do. A couple of times people have come a whisker away from saying they can sympathise with bombers and suicide pilots et al.
Who amongst us can honestly say they agree people have the right to kill others who mock them? If that were the case, Puerto Ricans would have wiped out Yanks a long time ago, the Irish the English, the Polish the Irish and so on. Your forefathers are turning in their graves right now. No one has the right to defile commonly accepted moral behaviour. No one has the right to decide what is acceptable as an individual or representative of a subsection of people either. Only what we know to be truly good and truly bad can define this. And we all should know the difference.
Go away you apologists, you make me sick. May the FBI monitor your radical pro terrorism posts. |
| PALM | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:37 am
Has anyone posting ever been overseas?? and observed any of the behavior depicted just a question |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 01:24 am
good question palm and I would be a no but I use logic and reason to figure out that we are fighting a bunch of egotistical narcissist racist monstors if you will you lead a bunch (actually a small minority) of confused uneducated pawns they cant all be monstors so the only other explanation is that they are undereeucated or depressed and they convince themselves that they aren't miserable by joining a worthy cause
and crafty their is no way for you to know weather you instinctively know what is right or wrong...I disagree with
you on that.
"may the FBI monitor your pro terrorism posts"
LOL......but seriously no
obviously I agree that these terrorists are wrong in their moral convictions as I am a westerner BUT the apologists bring up some good points I just hope that our interventions in the middle east create a more reasonable society so we can get along if not isolationism |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 01:27 am
oh yah and scarlets post did make sense
the pawns and leaders are both dedicated the most of the pawns probably are fighting for what they honestly believe or they wouldn't be fighting because they don't receive any other benefit really
like I said the only explanation is they are depressed and undereeucated |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 01:44 am
uh I have a question
the terrorist believe it is ok to kill for their beliefs we believe it is ok to kill for our beliefs when confronted with an obstacle
they are killing us Indiscriminately
can we kill them indiscriminately? do we have the fortitude to protect our beliefs
and crafty if apparently we know instinctively what's right and wrong why is it that apparently they don't? |
| Serpent | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 04:32 am
Quote:we believe it is ok to kill for our beliefs when confronted with an obstacle
Wrong. You have no right to kill to impose your rights upon others, not even the 'we' you speak of!
Crafty I think we are on the same page here. You say that there is a natural code of conduct, of moral rights and wrongs. I agree, I just said it in a different way. |
| Drew | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 06:16 am
+1 Serpent, should have said that earlier. I think many should educate themselves on what liberty means, and what civil liberties are.
Crafty I said that you decide to ignore the imbalance of violence against them. Would you like to count who has killed more of the others people. You ignore this, and declare them as evil and despicable yet there is no sense of morality passion or innate sincerity with that logic. Also no one knows what is right or wrong instinctly, if I were to pick on easy read, one you could get through and not take up too much of your time, I recommend David Hume that should clarify your talking out of your *** a bit. Good day |
| Crafty | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:37 pm
Why would I read yet another opinion on this subject? I know what I think, because I think about it. Think.
As I said several times, I am not singling out Muslims or any creed, race or religion in particular. I may have used particular events as examples. Such as in your idea that 'they' have received far more violence than dished out. Depends how far you go back dude. Islam tried to take over the whole of Europe many moons ago, but ended up in like Turkey and Egypt and around there. They were merciless. Does that not count? Its been going on for centuries.
So did Christianity, the Crusades, missionaries in China (which my family has a large history of), converting the natives, haha. (<-- sarcasm).
P.S. Maybe you dont know what is right or wrong instinctivly Drew, but you have no right to deny that anyone else does. I do. It IS wrong to kill or incite anyone else to kill over a belief in a diety that you cannot even honestly say you have seen, met, talked to or have any proof of their very existance. It is barbaric in the true sense of the word, pre-caveman, and mainly not conducive to the development of the Human race.
I defy you to deny that fundamental truth. |
| Drew | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 08:34 pm
Yes there has been major hostilities from them to. So I'll score that point as too much research either side would care to do. Because I mean if you go back farther you have tons of slavery and economic oppression.
I DENY that fundamental fallacy 100%! Our brains concieve the idea of death through our experience. We use those ideas associated with it to develop a value system of what life is worth independent from the majorities opinion. We use EXPERIENCE to develop more ideas and set our values on several other things such as god and among the others. None of this is instinctual. A blind deaf person will not hesitate to kill someone for the most miniscule reason because they have not experienced the same humanity as we have. The truth is the majority of unenlightened people don't kill for the sole reason of avoiding any punishment. The sole reason that these punishments exist is so that people can be productive, whoever concieved the idea of not killing anyone stood to benefit from it personally I'm almost certain. I think you post to hastily because you have no idea what you are talking about. |
| Crafty | Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 09:03 pm
Well, there you go Drew.
You think it can be OK to kill someone in the name of your God if they insult him/her/it.
Someone stood to gain from making murder punishable.
Murder is punishable so people can be productive.
A blind deaf person will not hesitate to kill for the most miniscule reason.
You, son, are ill. Get help. Stop smoking whatever you smoke or dropping whatever you drop. Go seek out some veterans (of war), some lifers in prison or talk to your spitual/religious guru. Even better, enlist and go see for yourself. |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Friday, September 28, 2012 - 03:00 am
you completely missed my point serpheant
go back up to scarlets comment serphesnt and actually stay with the conversation |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Friday, September 28, 2012 - 03:03 am
I don't think drew is saying a lot of that stuff for himself crafty he is seeking to understand a completely new culture and he is saying what makes us more right
like scarlet said the only solution is killing or reforming somehow |
| Drew | Friday, September 28, 2012 - 10:47 am
WHY THE HELL WOULD I SERVE AN INSTITUTION THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF MY COUNTRIES ECONOMY AND PUSHES THEIR VALUES AND PEES ON THE CORPSES OF THOSE THAT VIEW THINGS DIFFERENTLY FROM THEM!!!!!!!?
Did you read David Hume? I doubt beause you haven't told me I'm right yet. |
| Sir Anthony King | Friday, September 28, 2012 - 12:38 pm
What terrorist needs to do to U.S now, is to blow up their Liberty of Statue. Its the Liberty of Statue is what keeping U.S alive and kicking. Some dick will eventually blow it up. |
| Crafty | Friday, September 28, 2012 - 12:38 pm
Why? Because you need a dose of reality. |
| Sir Anthony King | Friday, September 28, 2012 - 12:59 pm
Ah. Thats the weak point then. Gotch ya. |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Monday, October 1, 2012 - 03:13 am
whatever anthony |
| PALM | Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 02:24 am
1. The Number of Muslims killed in the name of Islam in Afghanistan before intervention "unknown"
2. The number of "terrorist" killed after 9/11 not enough!!
3. price paid by unimaginable,
4. Will they continue, without a doubt.
5. should we continue "Yes" until the seed of hate has been exterminated with extreme prejudice
6. yes I have been over there....heck if the is a "stan" at one time or another I have been there and have seen firsthand and by all indications it is but a select few however, the numbers dwindle everyday |
| Drew | Tuesday, October 2, 2012 - 06:16 am
That is horrendous |
| Alexandrov Stolin | Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - 04:00 am
I didn't understand that at all? |
