Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » San Bernadino attack (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: San Bernadino attack
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Family members of the perpetrators have come out and acknowledged that the perpetrators had become radicalized. The president addressed the nation and said that, while there is still much that we do not know, what we do know is that: "this was an act of terrorism" (in spite of obvious political incentives not to have the act thus characterized, if the label could somehow reasonably be avoided).
At that point, I'll ask where the evidence of an agenda was, or whether the evidence that this fits a pattern that makes people feel at risk is.

Being radicalized and associated with ISIS makes it possible that there was an agenda behind the attack, but as yet, we don't have a shred of evidence to tell us what that agenda was, never mind that one existed. Just speculation that it's possible that they had an intentional agenda.

On the other side of the coin, we've had three domestic attacks that amount to random action be individuals radicalized by Islamists. That starts to make a pattern to fit it to, but fear mongering aside, not one that seems reliable enough to actually make any given person feel at significant risk. (And definitely not target consistency to make a specific subgroup feel at risk). But if we're going to call it terrorism on that count, then every Planned Parenthood attack falls under that umbrella easily, with far more clear evidence of terroristic effect, but yet many of the same people crying terrorism (and then targeting Muslims instead of Islamists with their concerns) are also trying to dismiss the notion that the PP attacks should be considered domestic terrorism instead of individual incidents.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Yep. And it worked in New York City, until someone reminded Giuliani that he was supposed to be a Republican and he switched from broken windows to its evil idiot cousin "zero tolerance"

Broken windows can be tricky depending on how you define what's a broken window and what's a person that needs help. You can get a situation where the police even more distinctly come across differently based on who you are. I think that's why COP shifts the focus a little more clearly in the direction of making an effort to be a positive part of each neighborhood and community and, effectively, making sure that no one is breaking windows in the first place.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It certainly seems that taking the flesh trade out of Time Square has improved the city, improving opportunity if not reducing crime. Literal broken windows are also a good place to start. And yes, community policing works well as well.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Family members of the perpetrators have come out and acknowledged that the perpetrators had become radicalized. The president addressed the nation and said that, while there is still much that we do not know, what we do know is that: "this was an act of terrorism" (in spite of obvious political incentives not to have the act thus characterized, if the label could somehow reasonably be avoided).
At that point, I'll ask where the evidence of an agenda was, or whether the evidence that this fits a pattern that makes people feel at risk is.

Being radicalized and associated with ISIS makes it possible that there was an agenda behind the attack, but as yet, we don't have a shred of evidence to tell us what that agenda was, never mind that one existed. Just speculation that it's possible that they had an intentional agenda.

On the other side of the coin, we've had three domestic attacks that amount to random action be individuals radicalized by Islamists. That starts to make a pattern to fit it to, but fear mongering aside, not one that seems reliable enough to actually make any given person feel at significant risk. (And definitely not target consistency to make a specific subgroup feel at risk). But if we're going to call it terrorism on that count, then every Planned Parenthood attack falls under that umbrella easily, with far more clear evidence of terroristic effect, but yet many of the same people crying terrorism (and then targeting Muslims instead of Islamists with their concerns) are also trying to dismiss the notion that the PP attacks should be considered domestic terrorism instead of individual incidents.

Delighted that you recognise ISLAMISM as a root problem. I like the term because it's a term made by moderate Muslims and singles out ththe problem rather than giving Islamists more credit and power as those recognized to speak for Islam.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At that point, I'll ask where the evidence of an agenda was
We already covered this--the Facebook post alone was evidence, albeit circumstantial, of what the agenda was.

It might be worth mentioning at this point that evidence of a motive is almost always circumstantial. If we had found evidence of ongoing communication with known members of ISIS, along with an illustrated plan of the attack, we could still be having a very similar conversation about how such evidence still requires the use of inference to determine a motive...
quote:
But if we're going to call it terrorism on that count, then every Planned Parenthood attack falls under that umbrella easily
Yup. For people who aren't invested in the term "terrorism" primarily as some kind of hot potato that somehow wins or loses points for a political team, the denial that terrorists who are terrorizing PP clinics are committing acts of terrorism is as absurd as the denial here on this topic.

This constant endeavor to change the meaning of language in a blatant attempt to score points in the ridiculous game of political bias is absolutely noxious--it undermines the power of discussion as a tool to resolve problems.

[ December 09, 2015, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We already covered this--the Facebook post alone was evidence, albeit circumstantial, of what the agenda was.
How so? I can't figure out from that who the intended target was, who should be scared because they will be targeted again in the future, or even an intent to target more people in the future. It gives absolutely no sense of what they were trying to accomplish to give it any kind of coherence.

quote:
Yup. For people who aren't invested in the term "terrorism" primarily as some kind of hot potato that somehow wins or loses points for a political team, the denial that terrorists who are terrorizing PP clinics are committing acts of terrorism is as absurd as the denial here on this topic.
And now, perhaps, you approach the point I'm making. There is one clear way to call this terrorism, but it means taht we have to face our dirty laundry rather than slandering an entire religion based on the actions of a small, radical faction that affiliates with it.

It's not terrorism because the perpetrators were Muslims (which was, essentially, the extent of the evidence offered initially, and what was held up as the thing that should make it obvious taht it was terrorism) or even because the people who did it were affiliated with ISIS.

Rather it's possible terrorism because, without regard to the people committing the act, because it contributes to a pattern that might eventually being to scare people if it continues without being addressed. It just has the misfortune of being up against a constant drone of other attacks on par with it that make it hard to stand out as an exceptional event. at the moment, so any fear that it might have caused directly from that pattern is overshadowed by a stronger domestic pattern that others are trying to raise concern about.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, you just really don't want to admit that it's terrorism do you? [LOL] It's so painfully, incredibly obvious this was terrorism - even Obama was forced to concede that.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the record, it seems highly likely to me at this point that this was an act of terrorism, and so are the attacks on Planned Parenthood.

What I don't get, is the "aha!" that comes along with Obama saying it is terrorism. Does naming it that come with some kind of "therefore" conclusion?

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, you see, every bad thing that happens while Obama is president is a result of the fact that he likes to play basketball.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
For the record, it seems highly likely to me at this point that this was an act of terrorism, and so are the attacks on Planned Parenthood.

What I don't get, is the "aha!" that comes along with Obama saying it is terrorism. Does naming it that come with some kind of "therefore" conclusion?

I think the narrative of "Islam is a problem" is tangled up with the idea that refugees coming from Islamic countries are a danger. In turn, an attack that can be attributed to ISIS and to "terrorism" feeds into that narrative and is a 'strike' against trusting people from that region of the world, whereas a 'standard' mass shooting would be reason not to trust our own system. Obviously for those looking to support our gun system and vilify Muslims there is traction in this event being called terrorism, whereas downplaying that aspect of it gains traction for the gun control crowd. Either way it's a political power grab.

I prefer the approach to the subject in Rafi's mass shooting thread, where the political power points are absent and (I think) we're talking about terminology in a better way.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it wasn't terrorism. Maybe it was freedom fighting?

At least to some people.

As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. They are fighting for the freedom to live under a fundamentalist Islamic State.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Drake:
For the record, it seems highly likely to me at this point that this was an act of terrorism, and so are the attacks on Planned Parenthood.

What I don't get, is the "aha!" that comes along with Obama saying it is terrorism. Does naming it that come with some kind of "therefore" conclusion?

Given the guys testimony yesterday, the PP shooter is clearly unhinged but what you're saying is interesting because now you're trying to make a smoke screen to confuse things and conflate issues.

It's not a "aha" that I'm seeing, it's a "finally" that the reality of the threat is being admitted.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Yes, you see, every bad thing that happens while Obama is president is a result of the fact that he likes to play basketball.

Is this the point where you tell us it's Bush's fault? [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Man, you just really don't want to admit that it's terrorism do you? [LOL] It's so painfully, incredibly obvious this was terrorism - even Obama was forced to concede that.

Funny, I've said exactly the opposite, despite your bluster. It's is terrorism by the exact same standard that makes the PP shooting terrorism.

Not because there's evidence that they had any explicit agenda to terrorize people, because no such evidence exists, but rather because they fit a pattern of becoming unhinged in service to a certain cause and perpetrating random acts of violence against the perceived opponents of that cause.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Given the guys testimony yesterday, the PP shooter is clearly unhinged but what you're saying is interesting because now you're trying to make a smoke screen to confuse things and conflate issues.
It was clear that he was unhinged when he grabbed a gun and started shooting people. The San Bernardino shooters were equally obviously unhinged. That really has little relevance to whether or not a class of people now has more evidence of a pattern of people becoming unhinged (which is to say, radicalized) and attempting to perpetrate violence against them.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Given the guys testimony yesterday, the PP shooter is clearly unhinged but what you're saying is interesting because now you're trying to make a smoke screen to confuse things and conflate issues.
It was clear that he was unhinged when he grabbed a gun and started shooting people. The San Bernardino shooters were equally obviously unhinged. That really has little relevance to whether or not a class of people now has more evidence of a pattern of people becoming unhinged (which is to say, radicalized) and attempting to perpetrate violence against them.
Are you equating someone who's potentially delusional and generally off his rocker to someone who has no problems with cognition and chooses to kill people anyhow? Is it your position that anyone who plans to commits a murder in the world is automatically "crazy"?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes. When there is a consensus that murder is justifiable and logical, we call tend to call it law enforcement or war and for the outliers we use "justice".
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Are you equating someone who's potentially delusional and generally off his rocker to someone who has no problems with cognition and chooses to kill people anyhow?
Do they have no problems with cognition, or are they choosing to murder people? Psychopathy is absolutely a problem with cognition.

There are issues such as self-defense where we may declare that killing is justifiable, but at that point, you've more or less removed choice from the equation.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Then what do you call a religious/ideological system that encourages and condones murder?
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Then what do you call a religious/ideological system that encourages and condones murder?

A tool for radicalization by those that promote it. Which there is no disagreement that Islamicism is like many other forms of fundamentalism.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You say that like radicalization is the goal.

ANY religion who writes off this existence as little more than a test to achieve rewards in the next one is indeed a tool.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Yes. When there is a consensus that murder is justifiable and logical, we call tend to call it law enforcement or war and for the outliers we use "justice".

What does your sense of logic and justifiability have to do with it? Someone can make a decision based on pure reason that they need to do some killing, and you can inspect their reasons and decide for yourself that their reasons are flawed or insufficient. Maybe they made an outright logical error in their judgement. I don't see how you get from this to "the person is a lunatic." There are real reasons in the world a person can be driven to kill, it doesn't require that they lack reason entirely. Murder can happen as a result of clear thinking, faulty thinking, or mental illness. There are grey zones and sometimes it's hard to tell what happened, but the difficulty in assessing the minutiae shouldn't lead us to generalize and say that any killer is automatically "insane" as a blanket statement and write off the specifics altogether.

As for 'justifiable' that enters the territory of ends justify the means and what is considered to be the potential gain of the killing. Since numerous people in America outright have employed ends justify the means as a matter of public policy this alone can hardly be a relevant factor in assessing someone as sane or insane.

It seems to me that writing off any violent criminal act as ipso facto being a mental health problem is to brush aside all details of what actually goes into certain mental health problems compared to others. I think it would be fair to generally say that a mass murderer has 'a problem' of some kind, even if that problem is just being upset about something. For it to be a mental health problem they need to have some ailment impairing their judgement, and this is exactly the sort of thing that comes up in criminal trials. Even the PP shooter's lawyer wanted to plead insanity but the shooter insisted on there being no trial and pleading guilty, despite looking crazed and upon his arrest having made a "rambling" statement to the authorities, indicating a possible lack of being of sound mind.

There's crime, there's terrorism, and then there's Joe Rogan's famous "This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem" aspect to it. The purpose of categorizing certain acts as terrorism - especially in regards to ISIS - is to locate and assess threats to America based on political and ideological grounds. Someone who's totally unhinged whose chosen way to act out on this is to commit an act of terrorism still 'counts' as terrorism but it's a totally different ballgame than people who are recruited by a terrorist organization to attack America.

[ December 10, 2015, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Then what do you call a religious/ideological system that encourages and condones murder?

A tool for radicalization by those that promote it. Which there is no disagreement that Islamicism is like many other forms of fundamentalism.
It's not like many others. Not even close. [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What does your sense of logic and justifiability have to do with it?
My sense from the perspective of a perpetrator of hypothetical murder? Or my sense from the perspective of one viewing the murder of others?

While we are getting better at understanding brain structure and chemical composition and can to some degree label "normal" or "healthy" parameters, a lot of what we do, and almost ALL of what we do discussing this here or in the media is not related to that. It has almost everything to do with the sense of logic and justifiability.

As we make legal allowances for differing treatment of "crazy" perpetrators, we can't even trust that someone "acting crazy" is not gaming the system.

I'm sure we'll get to a point where we slap on some electrodes run a scan and go, "Yup. He's a nut alright." When that day comes someone will get the brilliant idea of using it BEFORE people commit horrible crimes. When that happens, we really aren't going to like the big picture we get.

So to answer your question. Nothing at all. And everything...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I understand. I just don't see the value in placing someone who writes "ARMAGEDDON IS HERE THE WORMS ARE COMING FOR YOU OH MY GOD" on message boards alongside an ISIS fighter who believes in a caliphate. It's just apples and oranges. No, we can't scan their brains to 'verify' it, and maybe the lunatic is a brilliant actor and is gaming the system. But since we do assess motive, fitness to stand trial, and frame of mind (re: insanity defence), we do have to discuss these things one way or the other. That we can't do so conclusively isn't a good reason to ignore the issue altogether; we just do the best we can.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
alongside an ISIS fighter who believes in a caliphate.
I think this nails part of Rafi's (and many many other's) points about why Islam IS different.

It's not JUST a religion being repurposed/abused/hijacked for political/strategic goals. It included one, pre packaged.

Do you segregate the wormageddon cult because we have yet to detect a credible world threatening invertebrate problem or because there aren't enough of them all working together and believing the same to wormie about? [Smile]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
You say that like radicalization is the goal.

ANY religion who writes off this existence as little more than a test to achieve rewards in the next one is indeed a tool.

Indeed, and that interpretation of Christianity has been well used to similar ends. that's why it's Islamism, that has adopted that interpretation, not Islam as a whole, that's the issue.

quote:
I think this nails part of Rafi's (and many many other's) points about why Islam IS different.

It's not JUST a religion being repurposed/abused/hijacked for political/strategic goals. It included one, pre packaged.

you're confusing two different things here, which is the problem that people are protesting. Islam is not Islamism.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
Do you segregate the wormageddon cult because we have yet to detect a credible world threatening invertebrate problem or because there aren't enough of them all working together and believing the same to wormie about? [Smile]

Oh god.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
You say that like radicalization is the goal.

ANY religion who writes off this existence as little more than a test to achieve rewards in the next one is indeed a tool.

Indeed, and that interpretation of Christianity has been well used to similar ends. that's why it's Islamism, that has adopted that interpretation, not Islam as a whole, that's the issue.

quote:
I think this nails part of Rafi's (and many many other's) points about why Islam IS different.

It's not JUST a religion being repurposed/abused/hijacked for political/strategic goals. It included one, pre packaged.

you're confusing two different things here, which is the problem that people are protesting. Islam is not Islamism.

I do not study the Quran. Is there one version where the Caliphate isn't mentioned? Or are you suggesting that in one interpretation it "just happens" and no action is required by believers?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There are real reasons in the world a person can be driven to kill, it doesn't require that they lack reason entirely.
Someone who lacks reason entirely would be like if they were able to finish tying their shoes, never mind pull off a murder. You seem to have a very stilted view of what makes a mental health problem.

quote:
I think it would be fair to generally say that a mass murderer has 'a problem' of some kind, even if that problem is just being upset about something.
You're suggesting that killing people is a reasonable reaction to being upset about something? Being upset isn't a cognitive fault. The fault is in the reasoning process that winds up with "So I should kill them"

quote:
For it to be a mental health problem they need to have some ailment impairing their judgement, and this is exactly the sort of thing that comes up in criminal trials.
Absolutely. And, in any case but immediate self defence "so I should kill them" is clear evidence of an impairment in their reasoning process. It's simply not a rational conclusion to come to, even if they can self-justify the reasoning.

Any line of reasoning that ends with "so it's okay for me murder people" is sociopathy at best, which is a cognitive fault. If we accepted murder as a normal andreational reaction in certain circumstances, it wouldn't actually murder, because it wouldn't be prohibited in the first place.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I do not study the Quran. Is there one version where the Caliphate isn't mentioned? Or are you suggesting that in one interpretation it "just happens" and no action is required by believers?
Are there Bibles where God's new Kingdom on Heaven and Earth isn't mentioned? ANd let's not eve get into Revelations.

What's written isn't really relevant, how it's interpreted does. And only one small faction takes it as a literal command to resort to war, killing, and terrorism.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know Pyrtolin. Are there? I "got out" before studying revelations.

I do not question Islam and give Christianity a pass. I am in turn suspicious of, and disgusted by, pretty much all organized religion. I suppose the ones which endeavor to go all hermit like and/or stay as far away from secular politics as possible are OK...

I'd rather throw in with those guys warning us about global worming.

[ December 10, 2015, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The purpose of categorizing certain acts as terrorism - especially in regards to ISIS - is to locate and assess threats to America based on political and ideological grounds. Someone who's totally unhinged whose chosen way to act out on this is to commit an act of terrorism still 'counts' as terrorism but it's a totally different ballgame than people who are recruited by a terrorist organization to attack America.
Indeed. And since we have no evidence yet of a formal plan behind this attack, never mind any ideological goals, it's only terrorism by the same standard as other shootings by other unhinged/radicalized people to the degree that we can find an overall pattern to connect the acts.

But even then, I can't imagine taht you'd actualyl argue taht planning to kill people to advance a political agenda should be help up as an example of rational, reasonable behavoir such that it can just be written off to a difference of opinion and not a completely unacceptable disregard for human life.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr, you seem to be mistaking "reasonable" for "constructive." Just because you don't find a certain course of action reasonable doesn't mean that only a sick mind could get there. The world isn't black and white like that. What you call terrorism can be heroism from someone else's perspective, what you can murder can be called 'killing the bad guys', and what you call unreasonable can be entirely based in reason but just not reasons you agree with.

I think the word you're looking for is "constructive." Killing people isn't constructive, and this statement doesn't require relative definitions to stand on its own. But it doesn't follow from this that every destructive act is also evil or deranged; that part of it, which we infer, requires context and specifics. It is entirely possible to conduct morally sound actions that are completely destructive. Taking something down can be a way of opening the way for constructive actions later on. Murder is definitely destructive, but going further than that a priori requires a pretty hefty set of metaphysics to go along with it. You'd have to basically establish a set of realist moral principles (e.g. religion, or neo-Platonism) to be able to state that murder is ipso facto proof of a deranged or disturbed mind. You'd need a context-free set of moral and psychological rules to employ for this to be possible, and something tell me you don't believe in that. Another possibility would be that you believe in the relativist definition of sanity, which is that adhering to the mores of a given culture is sane, while deviation from the accepted common morality is by definition mental illness. If that's where you're coming from then your point would be tautological and circular.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Murder is definitely destructive, but going further than that a priori requires a pretty hefty set of metaphysics to go along with it. You'd have to basically establish a set of realist moral principles (e.g. religion, or neo-Platonism) to be able to state that murder is ipso facto proof of a deranged or disturbed mind.
Or, perhaps "law". I mean, it's not like we treat people who commit murder like they've acted in a rational and proper way. In fat, we go so far as to say that such action means that they generally cannot be trusted around other people and need to be removed from society until they can demonstrate that their reasoning process no longer represents a danger to others. We can mitigate taht in the case of certain kinds of mental illness, where we know that the fault in their reasoning puts their actions out of their control, but that doesn't mean that we excuse those that have show taht they were in control of their behavior yet still arrived at the conclusion that they should do harm to others outside of a specific framework taht we allow as reasonable justification.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a difference between dealing with a murderer and between assessing the merits (if any) of what they did. It's not like a TV show where if someone commits a murder but it was a 'heroic move' the authorities will just let them go with a wink. The law is the law, and it doesn't address good or bad. If laws are putting away good people then the laws can be changed, but regardless someone being convicted of a crime isn't really the same as them being morally 'bad.' It's hard, for instance, to argue against the premise of the PP shooter as being a "warrior for the babies." This is a more or less unassailable position, assuming the premise that babies are being killed and no one's doing anything about it. If the guy believes it then he believes it. You can't argue with his 'reasoning' since it's basically an opinion, but we still recognize that it's illegal and that it's a terrorist act designed to force social change. Whether or not such people act rationally or are insane is to an extent orthogonal to the fact that these people need to be stopped and tried for what they've done. But when we discuss what led to the event in question as regards prevention, it's quite different to see one case where someone was unhinged and totally beyond reason, versus another case where someone was amenable to reason and in fact used their reason to decide to join ISIS.

[ December 10, 2015, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The law is the law, and it doesn't address good or bad.
Yes, it does. IT exists to codify behavior that's bad enough to warrant public sanction. It's not just an arbitrary set of rules.

And on the other hand, we absolutely do put it's adjudication in the hands of human judges part of whose job it is to look at the full circumstances and determine whether any given act that violated its letter actually violated its intent and actively empower them to make calls based on he situation as to what the appropriate public reaction is. (Though of late, legislatures have taken to violating separation of powers via mandatory sentencing laws an the like. Overriding inherent judicial powers by requiring punishment without regards to the particulars of a given case)

quote:
Whether or not such people act rationally or are insane is to an extent orthogonal to the fact that these people need to be stopped and tried for what they've done.
There is no conflict between being rational and having mental health issues, particularly the kind of cognitive fault that would allow one to rationally justify assaulting or murdering others. In fact that kind of fault is more dangerous, because of that deliberate control and consideration of the act.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And now, perhaps, you approach the point I'm making. There is one clear way to call this terrorism, but it means taht we have to face our dirty laundry
I'm sorry. It sounds like you're saying that you're willing to acknowledge that this incident is what it is, but only if your political opponents will accede to your framework in separate, but qualitatively similar set of issues?

...as in, you see your opponents as distorting a separate issue, and you think that justifies you in distorting this issue?

*Sigh*

You do get that an absence of intellectual integrity on the part of your political opponents doesn't justify the use of identical tactics on your part, don't you, Pyrt?

There are reasons that I never jump all over the logical fallacies in Rafi's arguments the way I sometimes do with yours, man. Deserve to be held to a higher standard.
quote:
rather than slandering an entire religion based on the actions of a small, radical faction that affiliates with it.
I think this statement would be better constructed if it were: "rather than slandering (all the adherents of) an entire religion based on the actions of a small, radical faction that affiliates with it."
quote:
Islam is not Islamism.
Sure it is. Islam may be more than Islamism, but it also is Islamism.

If you really don't understand this, try reversing it: if you were to claim that Islam is a "religion of peace," which is compatible with pluralism and individual liberty, and someone else were to respond that 'no it isn't, you're conflating "Islam" with the set of beliefs of a segment of modernized Muslims who happen to hold such values,' would you be able to spot the fallacy in such a response?

Islam is a religion of peace. It's also a religion of extremism.

Our desire to create categorically exclusive language based on nothing but politically correct preferences and wishful thinking is a ridiculously irrational example of willful ignorance, bruv.

[ December 10, 2015, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

...as in, you see your opponents as distorting a separate issue, and you think that justifies you in distorting this issue?

I'm not distorting this issue. I'm highlighting how the standards being applied because the distortion. you're confusing my position with the case being presented for the sake of argument, particularly since the distortion here is being used to sew bigotry and spread prejudice.

Note that i never argued that it wasn't terrorism. In fact I was very clear on rebutting that false accusation. I argued that the evidence being provided ("They're Muslims, therefor this is terrorism") was founded on bigotry and not a reasonable basis to reach the conclusion from. What's telling was that the response was not to point out the stochastic nature of hte act, but to double down on assertions taht being Muslim was all the evidence of terrorism that was needed with vague accusations taht there obviously was a plan and intent behind the attack, despite no evidence existing to support that notion.

quote:
If you really don't understand this, try reversing it: if you were to claim that Islam is a "religion of peace," which is compatible with pluralism and individual liberty, and someone else were to respond that 'no it isn't, you're conflating "Islam" with the set of beliefs of a segment of modernized Muslims who happen to hold such values,' would you be able to spot the fallacy in such a response?
Indeed- they're asserting that a small faction that varies from majority practice be used to characterize the majority.

Islamism is Islam, but Islam is not Islamism. Islam cannot avoid the fact that it has this faction, but this faction is not representative of characteristic of the majority.

As subset is not the whole, the whole is better defined by the median or majority representation with small subsets representing exceptions and outliers.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
("They're Muslims who killed or injured a bunch of people, therefor this is terrorism")
Had to fix that for you. Wouldn't want anyone to think you were accusing people of general bigotry that ALL Muslims are terrorists.

There is blatant bigotry and then there is a safe bet that those hyper sensitive to fighting bigotry will find distasteful.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1