Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes, patriotism is a bizarre one. But maybe less so if you consider religion to be a tool of people who want to supercede the state in people's minds. Maybe religious fervour is just patriotism under another name - and so the similarities should be strong.

 

Given that we all presumably agree that there is nothing in religion, anyway.

 

 

Go to 29 minutes for an excellent 10 minutes on this.  

 

Harris makes his point very effectively about religion (islamism especially) being unique from other tribalism  due to the belief in martyrdom being the way to paradise.

 

I think Carlin is much more convincing in his response and multiple examples that show it's not unusual, just another variant of human behaviour through the ages.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Turns out one of the blokes who restrained him was a convicted murderer on day release (really) . So maybe Boris will see the benefit of letting crims out of prison after all. You couldn't make this s

FTW  

Nope. He sounds like a man who spent a lot of time being incredibly angry on the internet though. Do you know him?

Posted Images

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OA2cUyuDC14

 

Go to 29 minutes for an excellent 10 minutes on this.

 

Harris makes his point very effectively about religion (islamism especially) being unique from other tribalism due to the belief in martyrdom being the way to paradise.

 

I think Carlin is much more convincing in his response and multiple examples that show it's not unusual, just another variant of human behaviour through the ages.

Listened to that and Rayvin's earlier audio. Harris wasn't even disagreeing with Carlin though was he? But Carlin's point was fairly irrelevant to me. Yes, if you go back throughout the entirety of time, you'll find other examples of suicidal martyrdom. Ignoring the fact that the large majority of examples are still religious or quasi-religious, so what? We don't live in history, we live in now. And today, the issue is with radical Islam. I don't care if it's historically unique or not.

 

None of this supports your argument that Islamic inspired terrorism is primarily a reactionary political response to Western aggression btw, quite the opposite. I'm really struggling to understand your logic once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you've proved this morning, Greenwald would rather not concede there is any evidence of his fallibility. If I wanted a balanced view I'd prefer to have him and one of his strongest critics (Harris?) to come to dinner. You think I should listen to only what Greenwald/ISIS wants us to think of himself/themselves?

The analogy doesn't extend to what they think of themselves. I don't care what ISIS 'think of themselves'. I don't think there's much value at all in listening to them on that topic.

 

I care what the hierarchy of their motivations are, and that's a totally different question. Every individual and group thinks they are a force for good in the world. Evil villains are a fantasy from children's comic books. So why ask? I'm interested in, and we're talking about, motivations.

 

You've moved the analogy past its useful point. Analogies are to simplify not explain entirely. Taking an analogy past it's point of usefulness just adds complexity back into the discussion to no gain.

 

Anyway, in the past there has been much debate about ISIS's motivations being either primarily political or primarily religious in the media. Then ISIS published 'Why We Hate You' to clarify their position.

 

Pretty simple really. It's not about what they think of themselves. It's about why they act the way they do.

 

FWIW, I'd listen to Glen and decide if his motivations were aligned with his actions. In Glen's case I think he'd be shown to be dishonest in his motivations as he has been shown to be by his actions. In the case of ISIS, they have no reason to lie about the hierarchy of their motivations and fundamentally they are honest in their intentions (their intentions are abhorrent, but so were Muhammad's so that's a plus for them, I guess).

 

You see getting someone's 'biggest critic' doesn't get you a balanced view. If Harris' biggest critic were listened to (Greenwald), he'd have you believe Harris is a racist, homophobic, genocidal, Jew hating Jew, bigot. There's no value in listening to such nonsense.

 

I listen to claims and their relationship to reality, not vitriol and politically motivated bullshit from the Guardian on ISIS or Glen Greenwald on anything.

 

There's no basis for not believing ISIS's claims on their motivations. They're not incapable of honesty, especially when they have nothing to gain or no other reason to lie.

 

On the other hand, leftist media outlets and their cohorts do have political and cultural relativist positions to protect, and, are therefore, duty bound to claim ISIS are fundamentally driven by political grievance.

 

But what do I know, I'm just a bigot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reducing our enemies to nothing more than mind-bent adherents of a barbaric religion which our own policies cannot sway is no better than the dehumanisation of the Boer's as "a sort of inferior strange animal" or the American Indians as "merciless Indian Savages".

 

American Indians could be savage, and radicalised muslims can be mind-bent into barbarity, but throwing your hands up to say the savagery or barbarity is the cause of their attacks on us isn't understanding them, recognising that the savagery and barbarity on a massive scale is a human response triggered by seeing those in your 'tribe' under attack is.  ISIS benefit when we expand those attacks to the entire religion.

 

Recognising an enemy that acts poorly on the basis of an ideology isn't dehumanising them,

 

It's not subhuman to be ideological driven. It's not even subhuman to be driven by terrible ideology. If I were born in Nazi Germany, I might have been a Nazi. If I were born in Soviet Russia, I may have tortured people for NKVD in some Gulag shithole. Acting badly is not subhuman. It's human. It's as human as it gets.

 

Recognising bad actions is what matters here. It's not dehumanising. It's not some sort of social-Darwinist argument that we're better. Our culture is better. But we aren't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the other hand, leftist media outlets and their cohorts do have political and cultural relativist positions to protect, and, are therefore, duty bound to claim ISIS are fundamentally driven by political grievance.

 

 

I agree with this. Part of the reason it's so difficult to come to a unified perspective on these matters is that there are so many forces with competing narratives at play. I actually don't really understand why the authoritarian left (I heard these people labelled as the Ctrl-Left as opposed to the Alt-Right which I think is fantastic and will now start using) is so wedded to Islam. It's a regressive, right wing ideology. It's a million miles away from their position on most other factors.

 

I've no problem with giving Muslims or even extremists a fair hearing to understand their motivations, but the Ctrl-Left's dedication to the cause on that front is beyond concerning and at best just muddies the water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

 

Everybody talk about... pop muzik

 

You'll be grand Jill, if anything the main issue will be overcrowding as all the too-cool-for-school locals come out to support the Christmas markets whereas normally they'd leave that kind of thing to the tourists. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The analogy doesn't extend to what they think of themselves. I don't care what ISIS 'think of themselves'. I don't think there's much value at all in listening to them on that topic.

 

I care what the hierarchy of their motivations are, and that's a totally different question. Every individual and group thinks they are a force for good in the world. Evil villains are a fantasy from children's comic books. So why ask? I'm interested in, and we're talking about, motivations.

 

You've moved the analogy past its useful point. Analogies are to simplify not explain entirely. Taking an analogy past it's point of usefulness just adds complexity back into the discussion to no gain.

 

Anyway, in the past there has been much debate about ISIS's motivations being either primarily political or primarily religious in the media. Then ISIS published 'Why We Hate You' to clarify their position.

 

Pretty simple really. It's not about what they think of themselves. It's about why they act the way they do.

 

FWIW, I'd listen to Glen and decide if his motivations were aligned with his actions. In Glen's case I think he'd be shown to be dishonest in his motivations as he has been shown to be by his actions. In the case of ISIS, they have no reason to lie about the hierarchy of their motivations and fundamentally they are honest in their intentions (their intentions are abhorrent, but so were Muhammad's so that's a plus for them, I guess).

 

You see getting someone's 'biggest critic' doesn't get you a balanced view. If Harris' biggest critic were listened to (Greenwald), he'd have you believe Harris is a racist, homophobic, genocidal, Jew hating Jew, bigot. There's no value in listening to such nonsense.

 

I listen to claims and their relationship to reality, not vitriol and politically motivated bullshit from the Guardian on ISIS or Glen Greenwald on anything.

 

There's no basis for not believing ISIS's claims on their motivations. They're not incapable of honesty, especially when they have nothing to gain or no other reason to lie.

 

On the other hand, leftist media outlets and their cohorts do have political and cultural relativist positions to protect, and, are therefore, duty bound to claim ISIS are fundamentally driven by political grievance.

 

But what do I know, I'm just a bigot.

 

You say Muhammed's intentions were abhorrent, what do you mean by this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mohammed was a dick - he tried to brainwash people with mumbo jumbo nonsense.

 

He lived in AD570 - 632 he preached about a monotheistic religion and changes to the way people worshipped god. That's the same god worshipped by Jews and Christians at the time, he wrote the Constitution of Medina in Circa 622 which ensured the rights of all people of Medina and was a multi faith community. He was someone I do not follow but I can't find anything I would call Abhorrent when judging him based on the world in which he lived i.e. most rulers and leaders at this time it could be fair to say would be called dictators or monsters by modern day standards. Abhorrent is a very strong word so I think I may have missed something in my reading (which is very limited on Islam).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...