Mohammedans (EB could be a prejudiced bigot, but at least he's not Dot)

bloop bloop blah
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2101 by AD » Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:08 pm

embracedbias wrote:That's in french


Racist!!
User avatar
BlackRedGold
Registered Broad
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:42 am
Has given rep: 3 times
Received rep: 7 times

Post #2102 by BlackRedGold » Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:32 pm

embracedbias wrote:That's in french


I know, right?

#CharlieHadItComing
User avatar
IcE ColD
Registered Broad
Posts: 9793
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:37 pm
Location: Out of Purgatory
Has given rep: 139 times
Received rep: 235 times

Post #2103 by IcE ColD » Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:37 pm

embracedbias wrote:That's in french


[SIZE="7"][CENTER]PARLE BLANC[/CENTER][/size]
This whole idea that we are even important is a fucking illusion. We’re just an accident left to our own devices.

Trent Reznor - 24/07/2018
User avatar
BlackRedGold
Registered Broad
Posts: 3228
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 9:42 am
Has given rep: 3 times
Received rep: 7 times

Post #2104 by BlackRedGold » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:00 pm

embracedbias wrote:Now I know what it's like to be a French Muslim :<


A two time loser?
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2105 by Fruity Pebbles » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:10 pm

That number comes from a book not a paper. The author also had to acknowledge the data probably isn't that reliable in some of the countries he used (take a wild guess).
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2106 by jester » Tue Jan 27, 2015 10:47 pm

So, does this support harsher capital punishment?
User avatar
Zardoz
Registered Broad
Posts: 5862
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:48 pm
Location: Hamilton
Has given rep: 96 times
Received rep: 263 times

Post #2107 by Zardoz » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:42 am

Suple.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2108 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:49 am

embracedbias wrote:Easily disproven by one case, obviously

Btw, from the article you posted:

"I reported that between 1994 and 2008, the world suffered 204 high-casualty terrorist bombings. Islamists were responsible for 125, or 61 percent of these incidents, which accounted for 70 percent of all deaths."


I love these types of statistics. Yes, Islamists resort to terrorism. Terrorism, however, is a drop in the bucket. 9/11 was a massive and terrible terrorist attack. It killed 2,977 people. ~20,000 civilians died in Afghanistan, and estimates for Iraq very immensely, but the low end is in the hundreds of thousands.

An IED is a terrible thing, so is a predator drone. Both are used to inspire fear, but only one has a flag painted on the side.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2109 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:18 am

embracedbias wrote:The question is why don't other disenfranchised groups resort to terrorist attacks at the same rate as Muslims.


Is that true? Why was the guillotine placed in the working class district of Paris in the late 19th c.?

Does the political landscape of other disenfranchised groups enable them to take action?

America is responsible for lots of shit.. and maybe for Bush it had something to do with christianity. But the difference in deaths that you mention is just an accident of history. How many deaths would you expect if an Islamic extremist was in Bush's position?


Better question: would they be extremists if they were in Bush's position? The rich and powerful have an incentive structure towards moderation and conservation of the status quo.

So, to answer your implied question: no, I would not expect Islamic extremists to wield the power and influence of the US in the same fashion they do asymmetrical warfare.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2110 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:20 am

embracedbias wrote:The question is why don't other disenfranchised groups resort to terrorist attacks at the same rate as Muslims.


So only terrorist attacks are "violence"? Who defines terrorism? And where are you getting your stats from?

Are Palestinian suicide bombers of IDF checkpoints terrorism? Was the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist attack? Are the Tamil Tigers terrorists? FARC? How about the bombing of abortion clinics?

Why did the US consider the PKK in Turkey in the 90s a terrorist organisation but the KDP in Iraq a freedom fighting organisation?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2111 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:28 am

embracedbias wrote:No that's another good example of religions bullshit. It's just that Israel is only one country and jews worldwide are fairly progressive.


More proof that religion isn't the main cause.

Edit: this is getting too easy.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2112 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:37 am

embracedbias wrote:No that's another good example of religions bullshit. It's just that Israel is only one country and jews worldwide are fairly progressive.


1) Is the Zionist cause so easily labeled "religious bullshit"?

2) What is the connection between what you define as "progressive" and support for the Israeli state?
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2113 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:41 am

embracedbias wrote:It was from the article that d_k posted....

I agree with you. "Terrorism" is hard to define and is a tactic only used by people who don't have conventional means of obtaining, maintaining, or suppressing power.

But it's still worth considering why disenfranchised Muslims appear to resort to terrorism more than other disenfranchised groups.


Is that true though? Socialist had zero problem resorting to terrorism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What happened? Why'd they stop? Because massive reforms took place and the plight of the lower classes improved considerably. There was also the disproportionate actions of the state to deal with.

In more recent memory, you have the activities of Ireland. What happened there?

What other disenfranchised groups do you want to look at that are sitting on their hands. The more interesting question may very well be "why aren't they?" as opposed to holding up Muslims as a special case.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2114 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:47 am

embracedbias wrote:"I reported that between 1994 and 2008, the world suffered 204 high-casualty terrorist bombings. Islamists were responsible for 125, or 61 percent of these incidents, which accounted for 70 percent of all deaths."

I was making reference to this. You counter with an example from the 19th century. Always a pleasure, jester.


I love how you cloak yourself in ignorance, and use it as a shield to defend an argument for exceptionalism. The great value of history, eb, is that it tempers belief in the exceptionalism and uniqueness of the immediate.

Just because you cannot see beyond your own nose, does not mean that there is a void beyond it.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2115 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 9:47 am

embracedbias wrote:Terrorism only happens because of religion and never has anything to do with the political environment. This is something that i said


This post makes no sense. Try again
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2116 by Fruity Pebbles » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:00 am

jester wrote:Is that true though? Socialist had zero problem resorting to terrorism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. What happened? Why'd they stop? Because massive reforms took place and the plight of the lower classes improved considerably. There was also the disproportionate actions of the state to deal with.

In more recent memory, you have the activities of Ireland. What happened there?

What other disenfranchised groups do you want to look at that are sitting on their hands. The more interesting question may very well be "why aren't they?" as opposed to holding up Muslims as a special case.


It's amusing this could all be put in one post.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2117 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 11:17 am

Dot wrote:It's amusing this could all be put in one post.


It's admittedly superficial.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2118 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:10 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Picking on Islam for being uniquely violent right after the past two and a half centuries Europe, North America, and the Far East have had takes a lot of chutzpah tbh, so let's all give eb a round of applause for his hot take


But but terrrists.. watch the NEWS!!!!

Edit: I mean: "But I'm talking right now, at this moment! God, why does no one read my posts!" - EB
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2119 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:16 pm

embracedbias wrote:No, I meant that's literally what I was talking about when you quoted me.

"disenfranchised Muslims appear to resort to terrorism more than other disenfranchised groups" was a stand-in for "the world suffered 204 high-casualty terrorist bombings. Islamists were responsible for 125, or 61 percent of these incidents, which accounted for 70 percent of all deaths". I wasn't attempting to "see beyond my nose". I was simply referring directly to something specific.


And I asked whether the very basis of that question was true. You are addressing a study that chooses an incredibly narrow periodization (14 years) and asking a very large question. "Modern" terrorism developed in the 19th c. political fights of the West, so disenfranchised groups--that are not Muslim!--have, in fact, resorted to terrorist attacks. With some regularity! Jews in the Palestinian Mandate resorted to terrorism. The Irish resorted to terrorism. Pro-Life radicals have resorted to terrorist attacks on abortion clinics. There's a pretty long list, actually.

We are in a period where Islamic terrorism is of particular note, but that does not mean it is special ... and it does not indicate that other disenfranchised groups do not resort to terrorist attack.

So, is the central tenet of the question you want to ask based on reality, or confirmation bias?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2120 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:26 pm

Ok Ebbsie. I'll play.

Are there currently more muslims, per capita, angry and violent right now: possible.

Is there more Islamic "terrorism" - as defined by western media - than other kinds of "terrorism": probable

Are they more violent/terroristy because of Islam: I don't think so.

Is their violence effecting a change in Islam itself: I doubt it. Not long term anyway.

Is religiosity (all religions) conducive to politically violent behaviour: As much as any other following of a strict doctrine where the individual is cautioned against independant thought. So yes.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2121 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:28 pm

If all you're saying is point 1 above. Then 1- it's debatable and 2- what's the point of the debate?


When you're in line at a Tim Hortons, do you get more nervous because you see someone that you think is Muslim? I can only assume that yes from everything you've said so far.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2122 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:32 pm

I'm also curious EB, do you realise that all you're doing is dressing up this phenomenon (i.e. xenophobic immigration border blocking/deporting discussion):

A Jan. 7 post on Stephen Harper’s Facebook account, in which the prime minister said he was “horrified by the barbaric attacks in France,” received approximately 575 comments. Some six dozen — expressing support for blocking immigration from Islamic countries, closing Canada’s borders or just criticizing Islam — were still on the page more than two weeks later.

“Time to step down on all Islamic communities worldwide,” wrote one visitor to the page.

Said another: “All muslims should go home and never be let back here please mr harper make that happen they steal real peoples jobs that belong to us canadians.”

A Jan. 14 Conservative Party of Canada Facebook post entitled “Protecting Canadians from Barbaric Cultural Practices” — aimed at promoting the government’s legislation barring forced or child marriages — elicited similar sentiments.

One example: “Deport them all if you want to save Canada.”

A handful of other comments were taken down after The Canadian Press asked the party last Tuesday about their Facebook policy.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-parties-struggle-to-stay-on-top-of-offensive-facebook-comments/article22627949/
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 7759
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 13 times
Received rep: 182 times

Post #2123 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:41 pm

embracedbias wrote:If the goal is to compare Islam in its current form with other modern religions, where exactly does making historical comparisons get us? I never claimed that terrorism was only ever an Islamic problem. Or that it was always more of an Islamic problem than for other disenfranchised groups. Or that Muslims invented terrorism.


It casts it in a broader perspective, EB. As opposed to a narrowly defined one. It also reduces the tendency (which you most definitely have) to present Muslims as a mysterious and distinct "other."

It's not that large of a question. You want it to be a large question because you get to obfuscate by pulling countless historical examples. There are plenty of disenfranchised groups here in 2015... but one group stands above all in terms of terrorism. It isn't restricted to Muslims by any means. Regardless, there might be some sort of ideological reason for this difference. Perhaps something to do with an vengeful, violent, jealous God and heaven maybe.


EB, when you're talking about the beliefs of 1.5 billion people ... it's a large question. When you are asking those question in an effort to define their belief system as particularly and especially nefarious and dangerous, it results in further questions that are very big questions. This is something Sam Harris struggles with as well.

So, lets say that you are correct. Islam as an ideology is particularly dangerous ... it is the "mother load of bad ideas" as Harris put it. What do we do then? Quarantine them? Expel them from our societies? Preemptive strikes?

Not such small questions.

This is the same conversation all over again. I won't reiterate myself.


You reiterate yourself whenever something happens. "Aha! Look at the bad Muslims, at it again!"
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2124 by Fruity Pebbles » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:43 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Picking on Islam for being uniquely violent right after the past two and a half centuries Europe, North America, and the Far East have had takes a lot of chutzpah tbh, so let's all give eb a round of applause for his hot take


Who is saying unique? Last time I checked I don't live in 1940 or 1820 or 500 bc.

We're people living in a particular time. It's pretty simple.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 22974
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Guelph
Has given rep: 92 times
Received rep: 1088 times

Post #2125 by Craig » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:48 pm

Dot wrote:Who is saying unique? Last time I checked I don't live in 1940 or 1820 or 500 bc.

We're people living in a particular time. It's pretty simple.


Yeah, fuck history. No lessons to be learned there.
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2126 by Fruity Pebbles » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:49 pm

Craig wrote:Yeah, fuck history. No lessons to be learned there.


Right - that was exactly my point. Good on you.

And when I say I'm concerned about global warming - I should specify that I'm concerned about current global warming as opposed to the warm climate during the period of the dinosaurs.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 22974
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Guelph
Has given rep: 92 times
Received rep: 1088 times

Post #2127 by Craig » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:53 pm

Dot wrote:Right - that was exactly my point. Good on you.


Whether you admit it or not, it kinda is.

Jester posted an example earlier where improving living standards deterred socialists from committing terrorism. One could draw on that example and take a lesson from it, but your answer is "Nah, that happened a while ago. It doesn't count."
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2128 by Fruity Pebbles » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:59 pm

Craig wrote:One could draw on that example and take a lesson from it, but your answer is "Nah, that happened a while ago. It doesn't count."


"bad things have always happened so if they happen now who cares because I'll post a massaged example of the past".
User avatar
AD
Posts: 27133
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 1175 times
Received rep: 1398 times

Post #2129 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:01 pm

Dot wrote:"bad things have always happened so if they happen now who cares because I'll post a massaged example of the past".


"bad things are happening now, so I'll just put everyone associated with said bad thing in prison because I can't tell why the bad things are occuring".
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 22974
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Guelph
Has given rep: 92 times
Received rep: 1088 times

Post #2130 by Craig » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:03 pm

Dot wrote:"bad things have always happened so if they happen now who cares because I'll post a massaged example of the past".


More like "Here's a similar thing that happened before and how it was resolved. Maybe focus on that instead of embracing your xenophobia?"
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 22974
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Guelph
Has given rep: 92 times
Received rep: 1088 times

Post #2131 by Craig » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:03 pm

dempsey_k wrote:You need to go to the suburbs, check out a Buffalo Wild Wings on a Thursday, slap the waitresses ass and discuss Jesus and gays and hunting with other bros, hats on backwards, to truly understand the threat that sharia poses.


Actually, other than the suburbs part that doesn't sound like a bad time. I'd love to go hunting some time and I'm assuming the waitresses has a nice ass.

Return to “bleetbloop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest