6 ms·

>Do you really believe that anyone who is not exactly like you or do not believe exactly like you do should be killed? What part of my post suggests anything o

>Do you really believe that anyone who is not exactly like you or do not believe exactly like you do should be killed? What part of my post suggests anything of the sort? I said we are in a war against religious fundamentalism whether we like it or not, and we had damned well better win. Your attempts to cast it as some racist diatribe are at best misguided, at worst malign.

intended 14y ago
Desist. This will only generate a further flame war. Restraint and control of your emotions, and control over your ability to incite the emotions of others is the more fitting action to pay tribute to his death. He died precisely because someone privileged emotions over logic. Your actions and speech is in exactly the same vein. On a logical level - these comments add little to the discussion. They condone the asking of vague and undefined questions to subjects which are vastly nuanced, and complex. They generate further simplistic answers from people creating knee jerk reactions to your comments.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  My point is simply that Western civilization, and the Enlightenment values that underpin it, faces an existential threat from religious fundamentalism. That further, our society is not compatible with this fundamentalism, and must be defended against it. I fail to see how saying this is "privileging emotions over logic".
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    I'd disagree. I thing Western civilization and Enlightment values do face an existential threat from extremism. Your opinion of "us vs them" is just another example of it.
  - mcantelon 14y ago
    >My point is simply that Western civilization, and the Enlightenment values that underpin it, faces an existential threat from religious fundamentalism. Closer to home is the threat to Enlightenment values comes from lobbyists buying off our politicians and slowly transforming us into the kind of third world shithole that fundamentalism thrives in. Maybe more of a high priority than evil Muslims on the other side of the world, eh? Less dramatic, though, so you can't feel all messianic about it and beat your chest from your armchair.
    - redthrowaway 14y ago
      I never said it was the only threat we face, but lobbyists, as far as I'm aware, don't blow people up for saying things they don't like. It's a fundamentally different degree of danger.
      - mcantelon 14y ago
        You seriously feel in danger of getting blown up by Muslims? You're way more likely to get hit by a bus or get shot by the police.
        redthrowaway 14y ago
        >You seriously feel in danger of getting blown up by Muslims? Not at all. My argument is not predicated upon mortal danger to my person, but rather the existential threat to the beliefs I hold dear posed by those who meet criticism with indiscriminate murder. That they tend to be Muslims says something about Islam, and about the breakdown of civilization in that part of the world. However, I by no means lump the actions of a few extremists in with the billion other Muslims who don't murder innocents whenever they feel slighted. >You're way more likely to get hit by a bus or get shot by the police. A Big Mac is far more likely to kill you than either of those. Again, this is not about individual mortal danger, but rather about winning the culture war that we have no choice but to fight.
        mcantelon 14y ago
        "We will not win this battle with diplomacy; our enemy has no desire for it. We must stamp out the medieval death cults that threaten us, and this will require force." "Culture war" or use of "force"? Or does "culture war" involve force?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Whatever a culture war may or may not entail (I choose to remain optimistic, no matter how foolish that may be), it is certain that it will not be won by curbing our words to avoid offence. There are things that must be said about certain aspects of modern society that simply cannot be said politely.
flyinRyan 14y ago
I really thought you were more intelligent than this from some of your other posts. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your having a bad day.
- redthrowaway 14y ago
  I actually had a great day today. My views on this matter are strong, but they are the evolved result of several years of reading and careful consideration. Certainly you would never have found me espousing such views during the Bush administration, but I've come to reevaluate my previous convictions. We find ourselves in a clash of civilizations. On the one hand, we have the progeny of the Enlightenment. Despite our flaws, humanity has achieved unthought-of progress as a result of these ideals. On the other, we have fundamentalism characterized by our worst impulses: profound immaturity evidenced by the "you insulted me so now I'll hurt you" behaviour of these people, as well as unthinking supplication to unworthy authorities and adherence to their dictates. It's worse than that, though. The people who called for and carried out this attack and others like it were not seeking to hurt those who insulted them. Rather, they perceived some offense and so struck out blindly, murdering innocents. This is the very height of immaturity. It is supremely childish, and is behaviour that would be distressing even in a toddler. This is what fundamentalism reduces us to: unthinking animals frothing at the mouth and indulging in our most base tendencies. It strips us of all semblance of civilization, and in so doing degrades the species as a whole. These two paradigms, civilization and barbarity, are utterly incompatible. They cannot coexist. The unfeeling cruelty engaged in by these fundamentalists is anathema to the very foundations of our society and the human progress it engenders. Where the two cultures meet they will inevitably clash, inevitably with violence. We must decide whether our values are worth fighting for. Education and economic liberation can only take us so far. Where the scions of hatred and ignorance come at us with arms, we must be prepared to respond in kind, or lose what our forebears fought for.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    Do you seriously not see the irony of claiming that fundamentalism reduces one to their most base of tendencies, while espousing exactly such behavior as a response? We were all once barbaric (in many, many ways, still are). How did we get out of it? Education, not by some enlightened assholes blowing us up. Please take a step back from your emotion and think about what you're saying.

intended 14y ago

Desist. This will only generate a further flame war. Restraint and control of your emotions, and control over your ability to incite the emotions of others is the more fitting action to pay tribute to his death. He died precisely because someone privileged emotions over logic. Your actions and speech is in exactly the same vein. On a logical level - these comments add little to the discussion. They condone the asking of vague and undefined questions to subjects which are vastly nuanced, and complex. They generate further simplistic answers from people creating knee jerk reactions to your comments.

redthrowaway 14y ago
My point is simply that Western civilization, and the Enlightenment values that underpin it, faces an existential threat from religious fundamentalism. That further, our society is not compatible with this fundamentalism, and must be defended against it. I fail to see how saying this is "privileging emotions over logic".
- Ygg2 14y ago
  I'd disagree. I thing Western civilization and Enlightment values do face an existential threat from extremism. Your opinion of "us vs them" is just another example of it.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >My point is simply that Western civilization, and the Enlightenment values that underpin it, faces an existential threat from religious fundamentalism. Closer to home is the threat to Enlightenment values comes from lobbyists buying off our politicians and slowly transforming us into the kind of third world shithole that fundamentalism thrives in. Maybe more of a high priority than evil Muslims on the other side of the world, eh? Less dramatic, though, so you can't feel all messianic about it and beat your chest from your armchair.
  - redthrowaway 14y ago
    I never said it was the only threat we face, but lobbyists, as far as I'm aware, don't blow people up for saying things they don't like. It's a fundamentally different degree of danger.
    - mcantelon 14y ago
      You seriously feel in danger of getting blown up by Muslims? You're way more likely to get hit by a bus or get shot by the police.
      - redthrowaway 14y ago
        >You seriously feel in danger of getting blown up by Muslims? Not at all. My argument is not predicated upon mortal danger to my person, but rather the existential threat to the beliefs I hold dear posed by those who meet criticism with indiscriminate murder. That they tend to be Muslims says something about Islam, and about the breakdown of civilization in that part of the world. However, I by no means lump the actions of a few extremists in with the billion other Muslims who don't murder innocents whenever they feel slighted. >You're way more likely to get hit by a bus or get shot by the police. A Big Mac is far more likely to kill you than either of those. Again, this is not about individual mortal danger, but rather about winning the culture war that we have no choice but to fight.
        mcantelon 14y ago
        "We will not win this battle with diplomacy; our enemy has no desire for it. We must stamp out the medieval death cults that threaten us, and this will require force." "Culture war" or use of "force"? Or does "culture war" involve force?
        jlgreco 14y ago
        Whatever a culture war may or may not entail (I choose to remain optimistic, no matter how foolish that may be), it is certain that it will not be won by curbing our words to avoid offence. There are things that must be said about certain aspects of modern society that simply cannot be said politely.

flyinRyan 14y ago

I really thought you were more intelligent than this from some of your other posts. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your having a bad day.

redthrowaway 14y ago
I actually had a great day today. My views on this matter are strong, but they are the evolved result of several years of reading and careful consideration. Certainly you would never have found me espousing such views during the Bush administration, but I've come to reevaluate my previous convictions. We find ourselves in a clash of civilizations. On the one hand, we have the progeny of the Enlightenment. Despite our flaws, humanity has achieved unthought-of progress as a result of these ideals. On the other, we have fundamentalism characterized by our worst impulses: profound immaturity evidenced by the "you insulted me so now I'll hurt you" behaviour of these people, as well as unthinking supplication to unworthy authorities and adherence to their dictates. It's worse than that, though. The people who called for and carried out this attack and others like it were not seeking to hurt those who insulted them. Rather, they perceived some offense and so struck out blindly, murdering innocents. This is the very height of immaturity. It is supremely childish, and is behaviour that would be distressing even in a toddler. This is what fundamentalism reduces us to: unthinking animals frothing at the mouth and indulging in our most base tendencies. It strips us of all semblance of civilization, and in so doing degrades the species as a whole. These two paradigms, civilization and barbarity, are utterly incompatible. They cannot coexist. The unfeeling cruelty engaged in by these fundamentalists is anathema to the very foundations of our society and the human progress it engenders. Where the two cultures meet they will inevitably clash, inevitably with violence. We must decide whether our values are worth fighting for. Education and economic liberation can only take us so far. Where the scions of hatred and ignorance come at us with arms, we must be prepared to respond in kind, or lose what our forebears fought for.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  Do you seriously not see the irony of claiming that fundamentalism reduces one to their most base of tendencies, while espousing exactly such behavior as a response? We were all once barbaric (in many, many ways, still are). How did we get out of it? Education, not by some enlightened assholes blowing us up. Please take a step back from your emotion and think about what you're saying.