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 7)

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