I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie Hebdo

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:28 pm UTC

By the way, did youse guys see the article on the French handling of religion? Fish on Friday in school, but no Halal food. Mass celebrated in at least some schools every day but no consideration for Muslim students. Government money for churches (they are mostly government property) but none for mosques.

It is enough to make you think the Americans handle this better. (Probably because they do.)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:37 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Can you link to the picture of Mohammed doing bestiality? Or are you making shit up?
I made it up, an example by exaggeration. The point was to showcase how what may be acceptable in one culture might be offensive in another. So for instance while this images offends me it doesn't make me angry. Spoilered as NSFW
Spoiler:
Image

So I gather as long as they don't print cartoons of goat fucking that it is okay to marginalize another culture?
Tyndmyr wrote:Is it wrong to point out injustices committed by the powerful and the marginalized alike?
What do you, from a Christian culture, have to say to a Muslim, whose culture is very different than yours, that can be said and understood via satirical cartoons? CorruptUser goes on about floggings and whatever else without ever realizing that he is applying standards learned in this culture and biased by that perspective, to a culture that is different on every level to what he understands. In other words he believes they are wrong because they don't behave like us. Do you think the colonial powers saw the world differently? They also thought they were superior. So tell me how do you point out that injustice in a way they will understand?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:46 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:By the way, did youse guys see the article on the French handling of religion? Fish on Friday in school, but no Halal food. Mass celebrated in at least some schools every day but no consideration for Muslim students. Government money for churches (they are mostly government property) but none for mosques.

It is enough to make you think the Americans handle this better. (Probably because they do.)


See, those? Those are legit criticisms. Well not the halal food, unless they serve kosher but not halal. The Hebdo stuff? Not really legit criticisms.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:11 pm UTC

Forgive me, i was talking about the article on the front page of today's New York Times.

Fish on Fridays and chocolate for Easter but no Halal food. (Seems to me schools ought to feed them most anything that encourages kids to come to school, but I digress.)

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Zamfir » Fri Feb 06, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

I'm sorry they are dead. But they don't need halos. Satire serves a purpose in my mind. At its best it pokes the majority in the eye to get them to see the injustices in life. But wielded against a marginalized population by the French majority doesn't strike me as particularly fair. And I resent comparisons made to the civil rights movement.

You don't have to write hagiographies. But why turn it around and attack the magazine right now? You don't have to judge. After all, there were years and years in which you felt no urge to call out Charlie Hebdo. Them getting murdered is hardly a reason to change that.

Perhaps I am a tad oversensitive. These murders brought out a lot of people saying 'they didn't deserve to be killed, but...', from all over the world. People who had no opinion about the magazine before. And I don't see it. There might be people whose graves deserve to be pissed on, but hardly these people.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby cphite » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:07 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Zamfir wrote:Still, why call them out as jerks at this moment, when many of them have just been killed by people who objected to their works? And why them, out of the millions of people that deserve just as much to be called out?
I'm sorry they are dead. But they don't need halos. Satire serves a purpose in my mind. At its best it pokes the majority in the eye to get them to see the injustices in life. But wielded against a marginalized population by the French majority doesn't strike me as particularly fair.


They poke fun at all religions. The fact that one specific religion takes extreme offense, or is made up of a minority, or whatever else about them is completely irrelevant. They weren't singling out Muslims, they were including Muslims with everybody else.

And I resent comparisons made to the civil rights movement.


It was an example of people being abused for daring to express themselves - that is the similarity. Resent it all you want.

CorruptUser wrote:
And why should Mohammed (and religion) be beyond criticism?


What is it you want to do? They already see you as hating them and wanting to kill them, with some Justification. Do you see a difference between living as an atheist in a Christian society drawing a picture of the Pope fucking a goat and then that same picture with Mohammed, also by an atheist as part of a Christian society? Do you see the imbalance of power? Who is marginalized and who is weak? Of course you have the right, but do you have the moral standing to make the point you are trying to make? Do you think they will listen? And if you can't make the point then all you are doing is shouting look what I can do.


The flaw in your argument is that if you actually listen to what was said by the people behind the killings, and the people who supported them, their reasoning was not that they took offense at how their prophet was depicted; they took offense that he was depicted at all. And whenever these sorts of cartoons pop up, the outrage is not limited to places like France where they're marginalized; it's actually more pronounced in countries where they enjoy large majorities, and in some cases absolute power.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 06, 2015 7:08 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
I'm sorry they are dead. But they don't need halos. Satire serves a purpose in my mind. At its best it pokes the majority in the eye to get them to see the injustices in life. But wielded against a marginalized population by the French majority doesn't strike me as particularly fair. And I resent comparisons made to the civil rights movement.

You don't have to write hagiographies. But why turn it around and attack the magazine right now? You don't have to judge. After all, there were years and years in which you felt no urge to call out Charlie Hebdo. Them getting murdered is hardly a reason to change that.

Perhaps I am a tad oversensitive. These murders brought out a lot of people saying 'they didn't deserve to be killed, but...', from all over the world. People who had no opinion about the magazine before. And I don't see it. There might be people whose graves deserve to be pissed on, but hardly these people.

If you wish to think of it in that way than I suppose you will. However if there have been thousands of victims of Arab terror in Europe and the US, there have been many more in the Islamic world, and all they did was be unlucky enough to be born at the wrong time and place, and it's ongoing. Charlie Hebdo's editors aren't special. They are just a few among many.

As an American Charlie Hebdo wasn't on my radar. I don't speak French and I don't read many editorial cartoons. So I couldn't have criticized them. Notoriety works that way. The reason I commented at all is that I didn't and still don't like comparisons to the Civil Rights movement. For reasons I already have stated. I'm sorry to have angered you.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:24 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Is it wrong to point out injustices committed by the powerful and the marginalized alike?
What do you, from a Christian culture, have to say to a Muslim, whose culture is very different than yours, that can be said and understood via satirical cartoons? CorruptUser goes on about floggings and whatever else without ever realizing that he is applying standards learned in this culture and biased by that perspective, to a culture that is different on every level to what he understands. In other words he believes they are wrong because they don't behave like us. Do you think the colonial powers saw the world differently? They also thought they were superior. So tell me how do you point out that injustice in a way they will understand?


First off, religion is not quite the same as culture. It is a part of culture, certainly, but it is not all of it. There are folks that grew up in my culture that happen to be islamic. There are folks that grew up in their culture that are not(though that killing folks off bit tends to be hard on it).

Thus, criticizing a religion is not the same as being culturally intolerant.

Secondly, I have no obligation to accept everything about every culture simply because it is different. Or smaller, or whatever. They eat different food and dress differently? Whatever. They throw gay dudes off buildings? Yeah, okay, stop. That's wrong. Evil. I do not wish to tolerate or accept that. There are legitimate greivances with the religion that are quite serious. Nobody seems to mind overly much when I call out duplicity, stupidity, etc of christianity here. And yet...those are usually far less serious issues than we see in Islam.

Third, yes, we are superior. We have plenty of god-awful events in our past, sure, but we at least recognize those are wrong. Try not to repeat them. Our go-to example of crazy western christian sorts are the Westboro people. They make stupid noises and carry obnoxious signs to get attention. Crazy extremist Islamic sorts cause more trouble. Talking is superior to murder. The end. There is no need to try to get some bullshit moral equality out of an instance where someone made a cartoon, and someone else started murdering.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Third, yes, we are superior.
I think your whole retort makes my point. And other than that I don't see much more to say.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby PeteP » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:38 pm UTC

When comparing extremes westboro is imo low balling it a bit. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States for instance. Murder and attempted murder has mostly stopped going by that list but arson and bombs are newer and a bit more serious than keeping it at signs and speech.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Feb 06, 2015 8:40 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Third, yes, we are superior.
I think your whole retort makes my point. And other than that I don't see much more to say.


You're missing the point. It's not merely a "they don't behave like us". It's "they behave in a way that is quite hostile and violent to us". In particular, this incident highlights some extreme hostility and violence.

Pretty much all religions are different from my belief. Pretty much all cultures are different from mine. Hell, french culture is significantly different from mine. But when a bunch of people get shot, everyone's gonna come together and basically announce that we don't like that. That is not wrong. The other side does not need balance. No assumption of equality should exist.

PeteP wrote:When comparing extremes westboro is imo low balling it a bit. What about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#United_States for instance. Murder and attempted murder has mostly stopped going by that list but arson and bombs are newer and a bit more serious than keeping it at signs and speech.


You've got one murder since the '90s there. I don't think you have equality with Islam.

Additionally, I did not say that Westboro was the worst(just like, oddly enough, these guys are not the worst Islam has offered up). Merely the go-to example of religious extremists. In "people publicly advocating crazy crap", that's what we've got. People are not publicly endorsing kidnapping, murder, arson, etc. The same is not true in Islam.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:You're missing the point. It's not merely a "they don't behave like us". It's "they behave in a way that is quite hostile and violent to us". In particular, this incident highlights some extreme hostility and violence.
Yes, I know. Just out of curiosity, how many Muslims have died because of our actions? Say since the second Gulf War. Two hundred, three hundred thousand? More maybe? How many of those were combatants? How much collateral damage from drone strikes?

How many Muslims have died are still dying at the hands of those self same terrorists? In their homes and places of business, much like Charlie Hebdo. Wasn't there a bombing at a Shia Mosque in Pakistan, 54 or so dead. Multiple bombings in Iraq. I can't keep up. Would you say that we have offered violence for violence?

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby cphite » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:53 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:You're missing the point. It's not merely a "they don't behave like us". It's "they behave in a way that is quite hostile and violent to us". In particular, this incident highlights some extreme hostility and violence.
Yes, I know. Just out of curiosity, how many Muslims have died because of our actions? Say since the second Gulf War. Two hundred, three hundred thousand? More maybe? How many of those were combatants? How much collateral damage from drone strikes?

How many Muslims have died are still dying at the hands of those self same terrorists? In their homes and places of business, much like Charlie Hebdo. Wasn't there a bombing at a Shia Mosque in Pakistan, 54 or so dead. Multiple bombings in Iraq. I can't keep up. Would you say that we have offered violence for violence?


Who else in the world is crucifying, beheading, or burying children alive? Who else is capturing and enslaving entire villages of women, putting them as young as eight years old into service as sex slaves, and actually arguing that this is acceptable according to their beliefs? What other groups do you see out there reveling and cheering over the act of putting a man into a cage and then lighting him on fire?

But I suppose you could argue that those examples are the extremists; and they don't represent the religion at large. Okay.

So let's look at some more mainstream examples. Let's look at say, Saudi Arabia, where beheading, often public, is commonplace. We could talk about the blogger who was recently sentenced to 1,000 lashes - 50 per week - for the crime of advocating free speech. When it turned out that it would take more than a week for him to recover from the first fifty, they graciously delayed the next fifty until he could heal... but made it damn clear that he's going to get the remaining 950 no matter how long it takes. In fact, they made it clear that the intend to go to great lengths to make sure he stays alive for those 950... if he happens to drop dead once it's over, they won't mind.

Women aren't allowed to drive, can't go out alone in public, and can't go to places where men go. A few years ago, a girls school caught fire and fifteen young girls burned to death - fifty others were injured - because the religious police wouldn't let them leave the burning building, and wouldn't let rescue workers in to save them, because they weren't dressed properly. But hey, maybe they should consider themselves lucky that they were even allowed to be in a school in the first place?

But maybe it's just their governments? Well, a few years back a woman named Gillian Gibbons - a teacher - was arrested and threatened with lashes because the six year old's in her class named the class teddy bear Mohammed. After some pressure from the UK, she was simply deported - and people were rioting in the streets calling for her death. Because some kids named a teddy bear.

It's not just a matter of violence begetting violence. These places are run like it's the 12th fucking century whether we get involved or not. For example, the invasion of Iraq was stupid and pointless, and a lot of people died... but a lot of people were dying long before we invaded. Thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, were being murdered or disappeared by the Saddam regime every year.

Part of the problem is that while this shit is going on - systemic murder, rape, torture, slavery - the PC crowd here in the civilized world demands that we consider these things nothing more than a difference of opinion - another viewpoint, if you will. Be careful not to call them out too harshly for stoning the rape victim to death; you might hurt someone's feelings.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

If you want to know what's really fucking terrifying, the Salafis (Sunni fundamentalists) split with the Wahhabis (Saudi fundamentalist) because the Salafis think the Wahhabis are TOO LIBERAL.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:31 am UTC

cphite wrote:Part of the problem is that while this shit is going on - systemic murder, rape, torture, slavery - the PC crowd here in the civilized world demands that we consider these things nothing more than a difference of opinion - another viewpoint, if you will. Be careful not to call them out too harshly for stoning the rape victim to death; you might hurt someone's feelings.
Ok. Would you include Indonesia in that, 204 million. How about India, 177 million? Maybe Turkey, 74 million. Bangladesh, 148 million? Jordan, 6 million? How about the 2.5 million in the US? The 2.8 million in the UK. The 4 million in Germany. The 4.7 million in France? Are they all rapists and murders. Do they all practice slavery? Torture? We won't discuss China or Russia. I'll point out that the population of the Middle East is outdone by the population of Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India's Muslims. Roughly 450 million versus the Middle East's 371 million. Are there bad people in the Middle East, damn right. However I thought most of them wanted pretty much what I want. Food, shelter and families, and the money to enjoy them. You seem to be telling me I'm wrong. So I must be. I think I'm done here.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby elasto » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:06 am UTC

cphite wrote:Part of the problem is that while this shit is going on - systemic murder, rape, torture, slavery - the PC crowd here in the civilized world demands that we consider these things nothing more than a difference of opinion - another viewpoint, if you will. Be careful not to call them out too harshly for stoning the rape victim to death; you might hurt someone's feelings.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? Maybe change your source of news?

Leading UK-based Shia and Sunni imams and clerics have filmed a video message urging young British Muslims against fighting in Iraq and Syria. They say their film is designed to be distributed online and via social media to counter "digital propaganda" put out by Isis and other extremist groups.


In the film:
Abu Muntasir, from the Ipswich-based charity Jimas, describes Isis as "evil" and urges people not to "get mixed up".

Sayed Ali Rizvi, head of the Majlis Ulama-e-Shia organisation, says in the video the UK is "united under various colours, nationalities, cultures and creeds".

He says Isis "are cowboys. They don't represent the religion and are not qualified to represent the religion... We are Muslims united against Isis, against terrorism, against atrocity, against pain and suffering."

Imam Maulana Shahid Raza of Leicester Central Mosque, a leading Sunni cleric, accuses Isis of trying to create corruption and discord within the Muslim world.

London-based Ayatollah Seyed Fazel Milani also condemns the militant group in the video, adding: "We benefit from opinions of others and experience and that's why it is very important to have this unity."

And another Leicester Imam, Ibrahim Mogra, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, appears in the film, appealing to British Muslim communities to fight sectarian division and extremism.


I mean that's just the first result from Google. You can find plenty of others where Muslims and others condemn extremism whether it's practiced by Isis or the Saudi Arabian government.

Btw: Can you name a single member of this so called 'PC crowd' who you claim exists who doesn't consider 'systemic murder, rape, torture, slavery or the stoning of rape victims' to be abominable? Or is it possible it's just a fabrication of right-wing news outlets?

Second Btw: The reason governments don't shout from the rooftops condemning Saudi Arabian government atrocities is the same reason they don't shout from the rooftops condemning Chinese government atrocities: It's nothing to do with 'being PC' or 'not wanting to hurt religious feelings' (since China is essentially non-religious). It's 'realpolitik': 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' or 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours'.

You can argue the morality/merits of being ideological vs realpolitik in our dealings with foreign governments but it's nothing to do with 'being PC'...

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby mcd001 » Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:36 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Can you name a single member of this so called 'PC crowd' who you claim exists who doesn't consider 'systemic murder, rape, torture, slavery or the stoning of rape victims' to be abominable? Or is it possible it's just a fabrication of right-wing news outlets?

Fair enough. Of course the 'PC crowd' abhors the violence. But right after abhorring the violence, they will (usually) follow this up with a statement that implicates a different group (United States, Christians, conservatives, white males, etc.) by claiming they have done things that are similar or worse.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:20 pm UTC

During the recent Gaza war (that happened because the Muslim Brotherhood was funneling weapons into Gaza), there were hundreds of thousands of muslims protesting Israel. If Muslims condemn violence, how come more protest Israeli actions than protest Daesh? How come more protested Charlie Hebdo than Daesh? How come more British Muslims fight for Daesh than for the British Army? And yet for hundreds of thousands of protestors, it was more important to protest a newspaper that had just suffered a tragedy and murder a few more people over it than to protest the Qutbis.

When you say "well, 99% of Muslims condemn violence", it falls flat when the remaining 1% offer more support for violence than the 99% offer resistance.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:16 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Fair enough. Of course the 'PC crowd' abhors the violence. But right after abhorring the violence, they will (usually) follow this up with a statement that implicates a different group (United States, Christians, conservatives, white males, etc.) by claiming they have done things that are similar or worse.
True. And it might be because they have. It's an easy case to make. Would you like a rundown, just off the top of my head. Two world wars fought in the 20th Century, estimates of 60 million or more dead from all causes. Including little gems like the only use of Nukes in anger, incendiary bombing of civilian population centers on both sides, and an attempt to commit genocide on various groups. The placement of Japanese Americans in what are charitably called relocation centers, after confiscation of their property. Korea, Vietnam, a cold war with the USSR, which on one occasion came close to triggering a nuclear war. The colonial period in Africa and the Middle East which in part set up the current situation and give special notice to the Congo Free State. Interference by the American government at the behest of American corporations in South and Central America so egregious that it inspired the term Banana Republic. Shove the clock back a little further and you get the colonial powers in China, the Church and South America. All of this without the need for those "murderous Muslims" to be involved. I don't believe that any Muslims have invaded European territory or American territory in modern times. Need I continue?

Having said that none of the foregoing means that what happened at the offices of Charlie Hebdo was justified. But on the balance what is does mean is that people who decry all Muslims as violent people need to look at all of the deaths, not just the ones in New York or Paris. I would suggest that the numbers of deaths within the Muslim community from terror by one faction or another exceed the numbers of death by Muslim terrorism in the Christian world. Not counting deaths by American incursion into various Muslim territories as a response to 9/11.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:25 pm UTC

You forgot all the massive genocides throughout the Islamic world in the death throws of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians the Kurds the Pontics the Assyrians the Maronites...

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 07, 2015 6:59 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You forgot all the massive genocides throughout the Islamic world in the death throws of the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians the Kurds the Pontics the Assyrians the Maronites...
Yeah they did. But they don't seem to have a lock on it do they? In point of fact humans are pretty much dicks, generally speaking. Let us off the leash and we'll pretty much do whatever gets our rocks off. We don't need Religion to do that. Religion is the smoke screen. It provides cover and a satisfactory whipping boy behind which we hide our "baser nature". God made me do it. Bull shit. I'm an atheist, which leaves me no other way to see it. There is no God. Only us.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Parisians will offer prayers to the 22 killed in Baghdad today, including children who died simply because they had the crappy luck to be born Muslim in Baghdad? Anyhow, I thank the great random number generator in the sky that I was born here and not there.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby mcd001 » Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:13 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And it might be because they have. [my emphasis]

Based on your list, 'they' covers a broad swath; apparently all of western civilization. Your 'they' lumps Nazis, fascists and communists together with those that oppose them, but I suppose if you want a really impressive list of atrocities (and yours is quite impressive) you really must include those groups even if it makes your argument hard to take seriously.

morriswalters wrote:on the balance what it does mean is that people who decry all Muslims as violent people need to look at all of the deaths, not just the ones in New York or Paris.

Strawman alert. No one has said or is saying that all Muslims are violent people.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:24 pm UTC

Actually I'll go on record as saying I don't think I've ever heard of Malaysian Indonesian or Filipino Muslims as being a problem.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 07, 2015 10:33 pm UTC

mcd001 wrote:Strawman alert. No one has said or is saying that all Muslims are violent people.
Pardon me, maybe that was a mistaken impression on my part. Generally speaking I find that when people start throwing rocks at one group, other people who look like that group get hit by the stones.
mcd001 wrote:Based on your list, 'they' covers a broad swath; apparently all of western civilization.
Naw, I just covered Western Civilization, because that is what I'm most familiar with being a Western kind of a guy. Mankind in general pretty much stinks.
mcd001 wrote:Your 'they' lumps Nazis, fascists and communists together with those that oppose them
Yep, consider for a moment, before you dismiss it, the fact that in most cases populations don't start wars. But they will damn sure suffer for it. How many Syrians and Iraqi's had any choice in how their lives got turned upside down? But anyway.

CorruptUser wrote:Actually I'll go on record as saying I don't think I've ever heard of Malaysian Indonesian or Filipino Muslims as being a problem.
Maybe, but then again maybe you don't pay much attention.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:51 pm UTC

As evidenced by, what, disagreeing with you?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:29 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As evidenced by, what, disagreeing with you?
As evidenced by a Muslim insurgency in the Philippines ongoing now and incidents in Indonesia also ongoing, the most famous being the Bali bombing. People disagreeing with me is common, however it doesn't make them wrong.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby elasto » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:22 am UTC

mcd001 wrote:Fair enough. Of course the 'PC crowd' abhors the violence. But right after abhorring the violence, they will (usually) follow this up with a statement that implicates a different group (United States, Christians, conservatives, white males, etc.) by claiming they have done things that are similar or worse.

And when that kind of statement is made it's to point out that there's nothing intrinsic to Islam that makes it a stronger candidate for evil than any other ideology - whether that be Christianity, Nazism, Communism or whatever.

Just look at how violent the Old Testament is - from 'little' things like dozens of youths being mauled to death by bears for calling Elisha 'baldy' - to the Israelites committing mass rape and murder with God's 'blessing'. It's basically just an accident of history that right now fundamentalist Islam is more of a worry than fundamentalist Christianity or other ideologies. It's not like it was hard to find Biblical justification for the torture and murder of millions in The Crusades after all...

Poverty and lack of education are actually the real problem. They are the fertile ground that allow people to be led astray by the opportunistic and the charismatic. And that's not exactly easy an problem to solve. However, it's made a darn sight harder if the problem is being misidentified...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:21 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Poverty and lack of education are actually the real problem. They are the fertile ground that allow people to be led astray by the opportunistic and the charismatic. And that's not exactly easy an problem to solve. However, it's made a darn sight harder if the problem is being misidentified...


Surprisingly, this is false. Most terrorists are well educated, middle class, and do not have signs of psychopathy. Oddly, "humiliation" reduces violence. Given Cracked's article on Gitmo inmates, I'd say, well, not sure exactly. I'm just going to blame the MRA and Rape Culture.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby mcd001 » Sun Feb 08, 2015 5:10 pm UTC

elasto wrote:And when that kind of statement is made it's to point out that there's nothing intrinsic to Islam that makes it a stronger candidate for evil than any other ideology - whether that be Christianity, Nazism, Communism or whatever.

On one level you are right. Man can and will pervert any ideology into evil, but some ideologies are more easily perverted than others, and some ideologies are evil to begin with. Islam falls into the first category, while Nazism is in the second category.

Islam is not intrinsically evil, as the millions of Muslims who don't feel called to murderous jihad can attest. But there is a branch or off-shoot of Islam (I call it radical Islam, others call it extreme Islam) that interpret the Koran to justify all manner of atrocities. Based on a literal reading of the Koran, this may not be a perversion of the teachings of Mohammed in the same way that the crusades were a perversion of the teachings of Christ. I believe we need to recognize and defend against the existence of radical Islam, despite the protestations of peaceful Islam that it tars their religion (it does), or does not represent their faith (it doesn't).

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:23 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
elasto wrote:Poverty and lack of education are actually the real problem. They are the fertile ground that allow people to be led astray by the opportunistic and the charismatic. And that's not exactly easy an problem to solve. However, it's made a darn sight harder if the problem is being misidentified...


Surprisingly, this is false. Most terrorists are well educated, middle class, and do not have signs of psychopathy. Oddly, "humiliation" reduces violence. Given Cracked's article on Gitmo inmates, I'd say, well, not sure exactly. I'm just going to blame the MRA and Rape Culture.
Opportunists exploit vacuums. In the absence of structures that bring about social coherence you you lose the ability to damp out activity that keeps extremism in check. Saudi Arabia, like what they represent or not, doesn't look like Iraq because their society is structured.

BeerBottle
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 5:26 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby BeerBottle » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Third, yes, we are superior. We have plenty of god-awful events in our past, sure, but we at least recognize those are wrong. Try not to repeat them. Our go-to example of crazy western christian sorts are the Westboro people. They make stupid noises and carry obnoxious signs to get attention. Crazy extremist Islamic sorts cause more trouble. Talking is superior to murder. The end. There is no need to try to get some bullshit moral equality out of an instance where someone made a cartoon, and someone else started murdering.


So Morris has already taken you to task for this... but really? I genuinely wonder if people who say this kind of thing live in the same world as the rest of us. Here's a a fairly simple question, if Muslims are so violent and the west so peaceful, why do western countries keep declaring war on muslim countries, and not the other way round? The US led western coalition (which I assume is your "us") has continuously waged war on muslim states since the 1980s. The US alone has bombed 14 muslim majority countries since 1980.

Spoiler:
Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and Syria


A few of those were actually genuine humanitarian efforts. A greater number were naked aggression aimed at installing a compliant puppet government or simply stealing natural resources. This is a thread about 12 people getting murdered by some deluded muslims in Paris. And in this thread Islam as a whole is getting taken to task by (I'm guessing) citizens of a country that democratically elected a government that killed 200,000 people in Iraq to steal their oil. Or who kill and continue to kill 1,000s of innocents with drone attacks in Pakistan. Would be funny if you weren't serious, and if so many people didn't similarly manage to totally ignore reality when forming opinion.

And that is just the last few years. These superior "western christian sorts" marched their armies all over the world in the 20th century killing TENS OF MILLIONS and destroying continents, including the highlights of dropping atomic bombs on civilians (twice!) industrial scale extermination of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, etc. And it wasn't just the Christians, as the wonderful experiments with state atheism which racked up so many successes (=deaths) in Russia, China, Cambodia etc. shows. In the catalogue of human crimes the top places are exclusively reserved for your "superior" western civilization.

I assume you think the US was justified to start wars based on the 9/11 attacks? Do you also think Iraquis are similarly justified in attacking america over the unprovoked attack by the US?

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Derek » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:20 am UTC

So Morris has already taken you to task for this... but really? I genuinely wonder if people who say this kind of thing live in the same world as the rest of us. Here's a a fairly simple question, if Muslims are so violent and the west so peaceful, why do western countries keep declaring war on muslim countries, and not the other way round? The US led western coalition (which I assume is your "us") has continuously waged war on muslim states since the 1980s. The US alone has bombed 14 muslim majority countries since 1980.

Why do these countries have such a penchant for authoritarianism, terrorism, and human rights abuses?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 09, 2015 9:14 pm UTC

BeerBottle wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Third, yes, we are superior. We have plenty of god-awful events in our past, sure, but we at least recognize those are wrong. Try not to repeat them. Our go-to example of crazy western christian sorts are the Westboro people. They make stupid noises and carry obnoxious signs to get attention. Crazy extremist Islamic sorts cause more trouble. Talking is superior to murder. The end. There is no need to try to get some bullshit moral equality out of an instance where someone made a cartoon, and someone else started murdering.


So Morris has already taken you to task for this... but really? I genuinely wonder if people who say this kind of thing live in the same world as the rest of us. Here's a a fairly simple question, if Muslims are so violent and the west so peaceful, why do western countries keep declaring war on muslim countries, and not the other way round? The US led western coalition (which I assume is your "us") has continuously waged war on muslim states since the 1980s. The US alone has bombed 14 muslim majority countries since 1980.

Spoiler:
Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and Syria


Intra-cultural wars have been frequent. Who is to blame for which of those wars is highly subjective. But we are pretty good about not going to war against each other. The same cannot be said of muslim states(hell, even the specific list has a number of wars solely between themselves). So, there's an obvious cultural distinction.

Plus, war isn't everything. We might be imperfect with policing and what not, but we at least make some kind of an attempt at equality. Sure, gender inequalities persist in the west, but they're simply not on the same scale as in Islamic nations.

Potraying them as if they are is dishonest, and promotes a false equality. Much like calling folks who write cartoons jerks, and calling the people who murdered them jerks. That simply does not fairly represent the huge differences in play. One can recognize that western culture is imperfect, while also recognizing that we have come a long way compared to our past/other cultures.

One cannot accept that human rights are a thing and also accept cultural equality unless you believe that the struggle for human rights is invariably futile.

A few of those were actually genuine humanitarian efforts. A greater number were naked aggression aimed at installing a compliant puppet government or simply stealing natural resources. This is a thread about 12 people getting murdered by some deluded muslims in Paris. And in this thread Islam as a whole is getting taken to task by (I'm guessing) citizens of a country that democratically elected a government that killed 200,000 people in Iraq to steal their oil. Or who kill and continue to kill 1,000s of innocents with drone attacks in Pakistan. Would be funny if you weren't serious, and if so many people didn't similarly manage to totally ignore reality when forming opinion.


Nonsense. I have specifically called out extremism and what not. Insisting on over-generalization is irrelevant. As it happens, I was not a fan of the Iraq war(and in fact, protested against it). That's neither here nor there when it comes to this example, though.

morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:Part of the problem is that while this shit is going on - systemic murder, rape, torture, slavery - the PC crowd here in the civilized world demands that we consider these things nothing more than a difference of opinion - another viewpoint, if you will. Be careful not to call them out too harshly for stoning the rape victim to death; you might hurt someone's feelings.
Ok. Would you include Indonesia in that, 204 million. How about India, 177 million? Maybe Turkey, 74 million. Bangladesh, 148 million? Jordan, 6 million? How about the 2.5 million in the US? The 2.8 million in the UK. The 4 million in Germany. The 4.7 million in France? Are they all rapists and murders. Do they all practice slavery? Torture? We won't discuss China or Russia. I'll point out that the population of the Middle East is outdone by the population of Indonesia, Bangladesh, and India's Muslims. Roughly 450 million versus the Middle East's 371 million. Are there bad people in the Middle East, damn right. However I thought most of them wanted pretty much what I want. Food, shelter and families, and the money to enjoy them. You seem to be telling me I'm wrong. So I must be. I think I'm done here.


Obviously not. Those who personally rape and murder are rapists and murderers. People are responsible for their own actions, not those of others.

However, public support for violence in return for mere cartoons is troubling, even when it happens in western countries. Islam in western countries may be significantly more moderate than in the middle east, but it's not without some very worrying viewpoints.

And when I call out christian groups for advocating stupid policies(say, abstinence only sex ed), everyone nods. Nobody sane claims I'm generalizing to ALL christians. We're all aware that there are groups that don't follow that. Why the double standard for Islam vs Christianity?

elasto wrote:
mcd001 wrote:Fair enough. Of course the 'PC crowd' abhors the violence. But right after abhorring the violence, they will (usually) follow this up with a statement that implicates a different group (United States, Christians, conservatives, white males, etc.) by claiming they have done things that are similar or worse.

And when that kind of statement is made it's to point out that there's nothing intrinsic to Islam that makes it a stronger candidate for evil than any other ideology - whether that be Christianity, Nazism, Communism or whatever.

Just look at how violent the Old Testament is - from 'little' things like dozens of youths being mauled to death by bears for calling Elisha 'baldy' - to the Israelites committing mass rape and murder with God's 'blessing'. It's basically just an accident of history that right now fundamentalist Islam is more of a worry than fundamentalist Christianity or other ideologies. It's not like it was hard to find Biblical justification for the torture and murder of millions in The Crusades after all...


So? I don't care *why* it's a danger, just that it be accurately portrayed as one.

And honestly, I still think it's BS to claim that all ideologies are equally likely to be evil. Nazism wasn't evil out of pure chance. It did evil things because those things were a natural consequence of it's horrible ideology. Not every ideology is equal.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Intra-cultural wars have been frequent. Who is to blame for which of those wars is highly subjective. But we are pretty good about not going to war against each other. The same cannot be said of muslim states(hell, even the specific list has a number of wars solely between themselves). So, there's an obvious cultural distinction.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Who is each other?
Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, gender inequalities persist in the west, but they're simply not on the same scale as in Islamic nations.
Lets get down to brass tacks.
Hypothetical wrote: Lets remove the biases out of the way. We move into interstellar space and discover a Black Widow race were the females eat their sentient husbands. The only salient fact you have is that. No knowledge of their belief systems or culture. How do you class that morally. Do you judge them based on your moral compass which says, thou shalt not kill sentient beings? And if you do what do you base that on?
So you don't like the Saudi human rights record. What gives you the right to interfere? The bias that says your way is superior? You seem to have difficulty accepting that the way they view you is produced by a similar bias. With the only true difference being the ability of either to impose their view on the other.
Tyndmyr wrote:Plus, war isn't everything. We might be imperfect with policing and what not, but we at least make some kind of an attempt at equality. Sure, gender inequalities persist in the west, but they're simply not on the same scale as in Islamic nations.

Potraying them as if they are is dishonest, and promotes a false equality. Much like calling folks who write cartoons jerks, and calling the people who murdered them jerks. That simply does not fairly represent the huge differences in play. One can recognize that western culture is imperfect, while also recognizing that we have come a long way compared to our past/other cultures.

One cannot accept that human rights are a thing and also accept cultural equality unless you believe that the struggle for human rights is invariably futile.
In other words because they don't act like us, they are bad people. When we talk about human rights we talk from a western point of view. And that western culture is imperfect isn't the point, the point is that what you want to do is to imprint your idea of a cultural norm on a culture not yours. And it was just this attitude that drove western colonialism, bringing enlightenment to little brown men everywhere. And I don't portray Muslims as anything. From my perspective they might as well be from Mars. I don't think I can truly understand them. I was raised in a Christian society and I don't really understand the Christain mindset.

Just for the record, I don't care for crude satire. Jesus buttfucking God leaves me a little cold, I fail to see the point. I find it very close to something else. That is my personal bias. My point about Charlie Hebdo, is that unlike many others caught up in this mess they were aware of the risks and made a choice to move forward.
Tyndmyr wrote:And when I call out christian groups for advocating stupid policies(say, abstinence only sex ed), everyone nods. Nobody sane claims I'm generalizing to ALL christians. We're all aware that there are groups that don't follow that. Why the double standard for Islam vs Christianity?
Because despite the fact that you might be an atheist like me, we are steeped in the western religious morals for the most part. You might believe that your morals are rational and self chosen, but for the most part they aren't IMO, they are drenched in the Christian culture. And Christians are also a part of your culture, you share a common frame of experience. You're an insider. You have more in common with Christians.
Tyndmyr wrote:And honestly, I still think it's BS to claim that all ideologies are equally likely to be evil. Nazism wasn't evil out of pure chance. It did evil things because those things were a natural consequence of it's horrible ideology. Not every ideology is equal.
I don't make that claim, what I say is that all men can be evil. How powerful that evil may become is a product of its time and place. The ideology is a merely a rationale.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Feb 09, 2015 11:20 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Intra-cultural wars have been frequent. Who is to blame for which of those wars is highly subjective. But we are pretty good about not going to war against each other. The same cannot be said of muslim states(hell, even the specific list has a number of wars solely between themselves). So, there's an obvious cultural distinction.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Who is each other?


Western democracies. We don't shoot each other up much.

We DO go to war with some consistency with the middle east, sure, but the development of a kind of nation state that mostly doesn't fight it's own is huge.

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, gender inequalities persist in the west, but they're simply not on the same scale as in Islamic nations.
Lets get down to brass tacks.
Hypothetical wrote: Lets remove the biases out of the way. We move into interstellar space and discover a Black Widow race were the females eat their sentient husbands. The only salient fact you have is that. No knowledge of their belief systems or culture. How do you class that morally. Do you judge them based on your moral compass which says, thou shalt not kill sentient beings? And if you do what do you base that on?
So you don't like the Saudi human rights record. What gives you the right to interfere? The bias that says your way is superior? You seem to have difficulty accepting that the way they view you is produced by a similar bias. With the only true difference being the ability of either to impose their view on the other.


What gives me the right to interfere in ANY circumstance? Do you really hold that women having rights or not is all equal, and just a matter of opinion? Their view on the matter is just as valid as mine? Why? Also, does their women's views on the matter count or not?

If you want an objective measurement, countries that embrace equality tend to have better economies, because they're not severely limiting the potential of a significant proportion of their population.

Also of note is the fact that we seem to be able to handle moderate differences in ideology in a less violent fashion than us. Oh, sure, the republicans might lambast Europe for being socialist or whatever, but we're not gonna start a war over it. Hell, we're still on effectively quite friendly terms with most countries that are western democracies, even if the ideologies resulting differ somewhat. Vacationing there is entirely normal, basically no beheadings at all.

Tyndmyr wrote:Plus, war isn't everything. We might be imperfect with policing and what not, but we at least make some kind of an attempt at equality. Sure, gender inequalities persist in the west, but they're simply not on the same scale as in Islamic nations.

Potraying them as if they are is dishonest, and promotes a false equality. Much like calling folks who write cartoons jerks, and calling the people who murdered them jerks. That simply does not fairly represent the huge differences in play. One can recognize that western culture is imperfect, while also recognizing that we have come a long way compared to our past/other cultures.

One cannot accept that human rights are a thing and also accept cultural equality unless you believe that the struggle for human rights is invariably futile.
In other words because they don't act like us, they are bad people. When we talk about human rights we talk from a western point of view. And that western culture is imperfect isn't the point, the point is that what you want to do is to imprint your idea of a cultural norm on a culture not yours. And it was just this attitude that drove western colonialism, bringing enlightenment to little brown men everywhere. And I don't portray Muslims as anything. From my perspective they might as well be from Mars. I don't think I can truly understand them. I was raised in a Christian society and I don't really understand the Christain mindset.


Not entirely. Oh, sure, french/US views on rights were pretty influential, but there was that whole communism bit, and worker's rights and what not were part of that. Hell, the UN has rights that are pretty much a collection of different countries views on the subject, and certainly some of those seem like a bit of a reach to those of us in the US, but the extremely basic concept that humans should have rights is not something unique to the west. Specific collections of values are, we don't need them to value big macs and pickup trucks. Just, yknow, treat women like humans.

That's not ridiculous. You can advocate that Islamic culture do this* without advocating imperialism. Equating the two is kind of terrible, in fact.

*Some subsets are already significantly more accepting of female power than others are....so, cmon...

Just for the record, I don't care for crude satire. Jesus buttfucking God leaves me a little cold, I fail to see the point. I find it very close to something else. That is my personal bias. My point about Charlie Hebdo, is that unlike many others caught up in this mess they were aware of the risks and made a choice to move forward.


Not my personal choice of humor. However, that's a pretty minor thing to take away from this. How the hell is that the thing that bothers you when you learn about them getting murdered? The focus just seems crazy.

Tyndmyr wrote:And when I call out christian groups for advocating stupid policies(say, abstinence only sex ed), everyone nods. Nobody sane claims I'm generalizing to ALL christians. We're all aware that there are groups that don't follow that. Why the double standard for Islam vs Christianity?
Because despite the fact that you might be an atheist like me, we are steeped in the western religious morals for the most part. You might believe that your morals are rational and self chosen, but for the most part they aren't IMO, they are drenched in the Christian culture. And Christians are also a part of your culture, you share a common frame of experience. You're an insider. You have more in common with Christians.
Tyndmyr wrote:And honestly, I still think it's BS to claim that all ideologies are equally likely to be evil. Nazism wasn't evil out of pure chance. It did evil things because those things were a natural consequence of it's horrible ideology. Not every ideology is equal.
I don't make that claim, what I say is that all men can be evil. How powerful that evil may become is a product of its time and place. The ideology is a merely a rationale.


I do know the bible better than the koran, yeah. So?

EVERYONE is drenched in culture. Atheists have, for the most part, diverged from their culture at least a little bit. Especially in the US, where atheism hasn't been big in recent history. A lot of us(myself included) had religious upbringings, but chose to diverge from those expectations.

Rationality is possible, and so is divergence from how you were raised. There is nothing wrong with criticizing flaws in ANYTHING, raised in it or not, and to say otherwise is to abandon rationality.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:13 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Western democracies. We don't shoot each other up much.
We live on different planets. If you mean the last 50, only true if you count the Euro-zone nation and the US and Canada. And while we weren't shooting at each other we were sure as hell shooting at everybody else. Drop back into the 30's and we shot the hell out of each other.
Tyndmyr wrote:We DO go to war with some consistency with the middle east, sure, but the development of a kind of nation state that mostly doesn't fight it's own is huge.
And Asia and South America. Listen to yourself. We only go to war in the Middle East? Let me bring you up to speed, we only go to war when we can win, or at least think we can. Do you not see what you are saying. "We are better."
Tyndmyr wrote:What gives me the right to interfere in ANY circumstance? Do you really hold that women having rights or not is all equal, and just a matter of opinion? Their view on the matter is just as valid as mine? Why? Also, does their women's views on the matter count or not?
Well, I guess you would have to tell me exactly what you are prepared to do to ensure those rights. How many bodies are you prepared(on both sides) to spend? What I am hearing is that it's our way or the highway. Is that really what you mean?
Tyndmyr wrote:If you want an objective measurement, countries that embrace equality tend to have better economies, because they're not severely limiting the potential of a significant proportion of their population.

Also of note is the fact that we seem to be able to handle moderate differences in ideology in a less violent fashion than us. Oh, sure, the republicans might lambast Europe for being socialist or whatever, but we're not gonna start a war over it. Hell, we're still on effectively quite friendly terms with most countries that are western democracies, even if the ideologies resulting differ somewhat. Vacationing there is entirely normal, basically no beheadings at all.
Right, again you cherry pick your time in history. Because we aren't fighting today that is apparently enough for you.
Tyndmyr wrote:Just, yknow, treat women like humans.
How about we treat Muslims like humans? Do you like how the Chinese treat their minorities? Why don't we send in troops, and show them a little shock and awe? Truman fired McArthur when he wanted to go nuclear in Korea. And certainly we knew that Stalin was guilty of crimes against his own population, why didn't we intervene. We seem to like to pick on people who will have a hard time hitting the Motherland.
Tyndmyr wrote:Not my personal choice of humor. However, that's a pretty minor thing to take away from this. How the hell is that the thing that bothers you when you learn about them getting murdered? The focus just seems crazy.
Well in reality I don't like to see anyone die by violence. But as I said before, there are people who have choices and there are people who don't Charlie Hebdo had a choice they went into this with their eyes wide open. And my original point of contention was the comparison to the Civil Rights Movement. I'll stand with my assessment to this point.
Tyndmyr wrote:Rationality is possible, and so is divergence from how you were raised. There is nothing wrong with criticizing flaws in ANYTHING, raised in it or not, and to say otherwise is to abandon rationality.
We just don't criticize, we act. This has been brewing for years. When the Revolutionary Guard took the Embassy employees hostage it opened my eyes to any number of things. The question in my mind was why did those people hate us? Well, in part because we imposed a brutal dictator on them because it was convenient to us. Egypt was the pawn of Cold War politics and a vassal of the USSR until they discovered that the USSR weren't reliable. Later the USSR would invade Afghanistan and our actions and theirs put in place the Mujahedin, we supplied them with weaponry. And who trained there? All the while the thing in and around Israel. Add into the mix an area composed more of tribes and family alliances rather than our more typical nation states. Anyway, I suppose that we will have to leave it at we disagree. Here is a fairly concise history of terrorism from PBS Frontline, covers most of the salient points.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 10, 2015 1:26 am UTC

Democratic peace theory.

I mean it's real funny, claiming that "oh no, it's the Democracies that are teh real villians!". Do you see people from the Democracies going to Saudi Arabia and butchering a dozen people over cartoons?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:26 am UTC

Well, no. But then again the people who killed the artist at Charlie Hebdo were Frenchmen, they didn't come from anywhere.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:34 am UTC

They joined up with a Yemeni terrorist organization. If a US group had recruited a Saudi person to commit mass murder, you'd say he was an American agent now wouldn't you?

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Derek » Tue Feb 10, 2015 2:56 am UTC

Drop back into the 30's and we shot the hell out of each other.

Oh? Which Western democracies were shooting each other in the 30's? Because this is news to me.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests