ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Christmas incidents , Germany incidents , terrorism incidents

Reply
Old 24th December 2016, 12:18 PM   #201
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
How about the fact that the great, overwhelming majority of them don't practice that core tenet? This means nothing, unless a certain number of them also make noises against it to soothe your feelings? Because AFAICT, no number of middle-of-the-roaders speaking against extremists of their faith has ever had any actual effect other than to appease folks who demand that salve.
If you think this question is relevant you did not read what I wrote. Do so for a change please.

Quote:
And I have to agree with Darat that you seem to be avoiding the question he's asking in favor of the one you want to answer- not how you get your number, but why you think you have a right to choose one.
Which part of the word "estimate" is unclear and needs furrther elaboration?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 12:21 PM   #202
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
If I got to set the figure things would be eqsy. I'd set it to the numbers we see now and the problem would be solved.
Alas, I am but an observer and based on my observations, those numbers would be necessary today.

I also presented estimates for earlier years, when things weren't quite as bad yet.

McHrozni
But you have set the figure: ".... It's just a number I can say for sure would make an important difference by itself, in a one time event.
..."

So again - why should you be able to set the "appropriate" level of "protest" for over a billion people?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 12:45 PM   #203
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Your problem is that you think Europe has a paper cut when it actually has a snake bite and a deadly dose of venom coursing through its veins.

Under those circumstances, amputation starts to sound more reasonable. Especially when the alternative is death.
Ah yes, more metaphors that reduce people fleeing horrible violence as 'poisonous snakes' that signal the eminent death of our way of life and all that is good and pure in the world.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 01:00 PM   #204
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
If you think this question is relevant you did not read what I wrote. Do so for a change please.
(Shrug) If I thought you were actually in a position to set policy, I might take the trouble. As it is, all I see is another self-important, anonymous Internet poster whining that enough moderate Muslims aren't taking some action that would have no effect on extremists but to soothe his bigoted butthurt anyway.

Quote:
Which part of the word "estimate" is unclear and needs furrther elaboration?

McHrozni
Which part of the word "you" is giving you so much trouble?
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 01:03 PM   #205
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
As I said, I estimated it based on numbers of Muslims and on the paticipation on similar events of such nature. Rages against wordwide prosperity on G7 meeting routinely drew tens to hundreds of thousands. Political rallies feature tens of thousands of people. Rallies againt government in Venezuela and those on Hajj draws well over a million. Efforts on this scale would bring measurable results in a few years. If you want a one time event to essentially solve the issue, you're looking at 9 figures, minimum.

If you know of a more scientific approach you're welcome to present it.

McHrozni
What if a one-time event is not going to solve the issue?

Do you know what a gathering of millions of moderate voices denouncing violence and calling for peace looks like to an extremist? A target-rich environment full of apostates and heretics.

30,000 Libyans marched against violence after Benghazi. They carried signs saying 'this is not Libya' and 'Ambassador Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.' These signs were written in English specifically to make sure Americans got the message. Yet still there was constant demand from certain media pundits just like yours that 'no Muslims are denouncing this atrocity' while conveniently ignoring that is exactly what happened. They stormed and overran numerous militia compounds in a tremendous show of force. Several recent attacks in Europe have resulted in calls from prominent clerics, Arab/Gulf state governments and regional groups. Again, a certain sector of the media pretend like that hasn't been the case and demand that 'someone! anyone! from the 'Muslim world' make a statement of condemnation.'

Another good reason why the threshold you demand won't be met? Do you know what happens to people who cooperate with the U.S. against terrorists or who speak out against a theocratic regime or those who wish to impose one? May as well call it 'suicide by suicide bomber.'
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th December 2016, 01:08 PM   #206
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
That's why Muslims must reject violence, loudly and often. It is the only effective way to counter the tenets of Islam and it is the only way non-Muslims can be reassured not all Muslims believe in that core tenent. Police can only mitigate when that effort is insufficient. It's the last line of defense, not the first and certainly not the only line as some would have it.
They do, just not in the manner or numbers you deem acceptable.

Reminds me of a meme I saw recently. Shows looters and says 'you must protest peacefully!' The next four frames are athletes or entertainment celebrities engaging in some kind of simple, peaceful, passive form of protest all containing the caption 'but not like that, either.' It starts to become clear that the form of response isn't the actual issue and nothing will ever be 'good enough' to satisfy the bigoted mind.

Quote:
Feelings of Muslims are typically championed, but feelings of non-Muslims are too often ignored. You can see the results of that already in polls in US, EU and elsewhere.

McHrozni
The electoral victories of ethno-nationalists who want to turn their backs on war refugees and impose pointless, punitive restrictions on articles of clothing tell you that Muslims are being championed and non-Muslims are being ignored?

Really, now?!

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 24th December 2016 at 01:12 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 03:13 AM   #207
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But you have set the figure: ".... It's just a number I can say for sure would make an important difference by itself, in a one time event.
..."

So again - why should you be able to set the "appropriate" level of "protest" for over a billion people?
I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you think you have a better estimate you're free to present it.

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people. Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part. The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them. True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false. Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.

I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 25th December 2016 at 03:30 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 03:22 AM   #208
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
What if a one-time event is not going to solve the issue?
Short of a truly phenomenal event, unprecendented in human history, a single event isn't going to cut it. The thing is, some here are selling one small event as the silver bullet.

Quote:
30,000 Libyans marched against violence after Benghazi. They carried signs saying 'this is not Libya' and 'Ambassador Stevens was a friend to all Libyans.' These signs were written in English specifically to make sure Americans got the message. Yet still there was constant demand from certain media pundits just like yours that 'no Muslims are denouncing this atrocity' while conveniently ignoring that is exactly what happened. They stormed and overran numerous militia compounds in a tremendous show of force. Several recent attacks in Europe have resulted in calls from prominent clerics, Arab/Gulf state governments and regional groups. Again, a certain sector of the media pretend like that hasn't been the case and demand that 'someone! anyone! from the 'Muslim world' make a statement of condemnation.'
Yes, yes, all welcome. Now if only those Muslims that aren't directly implicated pick some slack as well, things would become notably better too.

Not that 30,000 Libyans is all that impressive to begin with.

Quote:
Another good reason why the threshold you demand won't be met? Do you know what happens to people who cooperate with the U.S. against terrorists or who speak out against a theocratic regime or those who wish to impose one? May as well call it 'suicide by suicide bomber.'
I don't demand it, I'm estimating what the treshold for effective countering of terrorism is right now. It will be larger five years from now. Evernyone is free to make whatever excuses, just don't think that having an excuse is a substitute for a honest effort.

I'm talking about how to defeat the terrorists. Cowering in fear and letting non-Muslims risk their lives on your behalf certainly doesn't work. I mentioned something about controlling the narrative earlier, the non-extremist Muslims let the extremists control the narrative for decades for whatever reason. The terrorists are winning as long as this is true. If you have a better option of how to change that do speak up. If it's easier and/or more effecive than mine I'll join your calls for it.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 03:24 AM   #209
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
They do, just not in the manner or numbers you deem acceptable.
Yes. The current effort would probably be sufficient 20 years ago. If they did this then islamic terrorism wouldn't have one iota the effect it does now.

Quote:
The electoral victories of ethno-nationalists who want to turn their backs on war refugees and impose pointless, punitive restrictions on articles of clothing tell you that Muslims are being championed and non-Muslims are being ignored?

Really, now?!
Yes. Do remember where those war refugees were from and why are they turning their backs on them.

Islamic terrorists are a major part of the equation.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 03:33 AM   #210
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
(Shrug) If I thought you were actually in a position to set policy, I might take the trouble.
Try reading this post, line marked with the number 12:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...16&postcount=1

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 05:31 AM   #211
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people. Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part. The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them. True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false. Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.

I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.
You don't find it objectionable to require Muslims to denounce the content of their holy books, or you will accuse them of complicity in a desire to massacre all non-Muslims? The fact that Muslims in general express no such desire and don't engage in violence isn't enough. They must all publicly denounce their holy books! You really can't understand why that's objectionable.

OK I've said I don't require all Jews to renounce illegal occupation of various lands, on pain of holding them responsible, each and every one, for these usurpations. From now on you won't find it objectionable if I require the Jewish community here publicly to denounce the Tanakh, which of course contains many passages mandating and celebrating the occupation of these very lands, and indeed the massacre of their inhabitants.

If I start a campaign along these lines, you won't understand why that might reasonably be considered objectionable?

You ideas contain some very familiar xenophobic themes. They are an exact copy of former manifestations of anti-catholicismWP.
After the Reformation and until at least the late 20th Century, majority Protestant states (especially England, Germany, the United States, and Canada) made anti-Catholicism and opposition to the Pope and Catholic rituals major political themes, with anti-Catholic sentiment at times leading to violence and religious discrimination against Catholic individuals (often derogatorily referred to in Anglophone Protestant countries as "papists" or "Romanists"). Historically, Catholics in Protestant countries were frequently (and almost always baselessly) suspected of conspiring against the state in furtherance of papal interests or to establish a political hegemony under the "Papacy", with Protestants sometimes questioning Catholic individuals' loyalty to the state and suspecting Catholics of ultimately maintaining loyalty to the Vatican rather than their domiciled country.
Here's another of your eminent precursors.
As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), Sir WIlliam Blackstone, Offences Against God and Religion. For Sir William, was it enough that "papists" should be peaceful neighbours, law abiding citizens? No, they must also collectively and jointly "renounce the supremacy of the Pope". Who could possibly object to that? Did they? No. What happened? Nothing. In 1829 they were emancipated. What damage did that do to the UK? None at all.

Last edited by Craig B; 25th December 2016 at 05:34 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 06:28 AM   #212
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you think you have a better estimate you're free to present it.

It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people. Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part. The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them. True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false. Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.
Great- the only way non-Muslims can tell the Muslims who are trying to kill them from the ones who aren't is for some certain number to protest against the killing, otherwise the ones whose actions don't suit the definition of "terrorist" are at least abettors. Because I'm sure the ones who are trying to kill non-Muslims would be absolutely horrified at the idea of lying about their intentions. But I'm sure you're right- enough signatures on a great big piece of paper, maybe? That would certainly put a spoke in the terrorist wheel, huh?
Quote:
I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

McHrozni
I'll bet you do. Skeptic Tank probably finds it hard to believe more white people don't agree with his views on race; there are any number of monomaniacs on any number of subjects- UFOs, 9/11, NDEs, you name it- who can't believe folks don't buy into their claptrap. That sort of incredulity is kind of a defining characteristic of the type; and their incredulity, like yours, is irrelevant.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 06:36 AM   #213
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,755
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Try reading this post, line marked with the number 12:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...16&postcount=1

McHrozni
You mean this?
Quote:
Having your opinion, claim or argument challenged, doubted or dismissed is not attacking the arguer.
If you think I'm in violation of that rule, report me.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 07:00 AM   #214
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
I'm not setting it, I'm estimating it. If you think you have a better estimate you're free to present it.
No you are simply pulling a figure out of thin air, there is no science, no reason and no evidence to back your "estimation".

Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
It's also not of 1 billion of people, but over 7 billion people.
1) You are now twisting yourself to get out from your statements, let me remind you it was you that said how many Muslims had to protest. And there are only a billion or so Muslims in the world not 7 billion.
2) You are now not only trying to set the scale of protests for Muslims but also how the rest of the non-muslims must react!

That is sheer hubris.
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Muslims must ensure non-Muslims are able to tell who wants to kill them as their holy books command and who opts not to believe that part.
I would say it seems just over a billion muslims make that clear every second, every hour of every day.

Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
The current levels of protest implicate most as silently agreeing with them.
You do know that to argue as your premise your conclusion is a logical fallacy?

Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
True or false don't matter nearly as much as perceptions of this being true or false.
Whether something is truthful or not may not matter to you but I for one take great stock in knowing what is truthful and what isn't. And in this matter I have the evidence of over a billion people every single day.
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Muslims can counter that, the rest of us can't. So they should do it, for the good of everyone, except of the terrorists.
Then why did you mention the rest of the population?

You can twist or turn as much as you like and try to dress your opinions in a semblance of rationality but to date you haven't been able to provide any reason why you get to set the appropriate level of protest.
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
I find it hard to believe you guys find this objectionable. I truly do.

McHrozni
From time to time we all tend to forget that our opinions are not facts, In this instance you are confusing your opinions and your guesses as being facts, which is why you can't understand the objections to you setting the appropriate level of protest for over a billion individuals.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th December 2016, 05:37 PM   #215
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
Short of a truly phenomenal event, unprecendented in human history, a single event isn't going to cut it. The thing is, some here are selling one small event as the silver bullet.
So you admit that only a completely nonsensical expectation, utterly outside of the boundaries of probability is the burden you need to have met in order to be satisfied?

At this time I would ask that you start holding your breath.

Quote:
Yes, yes, all welcome. Now if only those Muslims that aren't directly implicated pick some slack as well, things would become notably better too.
You mean like clerics and national figures in Arab Gulf states denouncing acts of terrorism that take place in Europe in some cases by people who were born and lived in Europe their entire lives?

I wonder if you've actually done any research on this whatsoever since you seem blissfully unaware that the things you insist must happen have actually already happened.

Quote:
Not that 30,000 Libyans is all that impressive to begin with.
Compared to one or two dozen actual militants and maybe a few hundred (at most) looters and otherwise unaffiliated aggressors?

That's like 100:1 at a bare minimum. Literally 100x more people said "this is wrong" than those who committed any violence at all. Then they went further and expelled militias from compounds around the city. It is worth noting that the vast bulk of them weren't even armed with weapons, it was the sheer overwhelming force of numbers.

But your dismissal of this symbolic act only furthers my suspicion that this has nothing to do with being reasonable whatsoever.

Quote:
I don't demand it, I'm estimating what the treshold for effective countering of terrorism is right now. It will be larger five years from now. Evernyone is free to make whatever excuses, just don't think that having an excuse is a substitute for a honest effort.
Who gets to differentiate an 'excuse' from an 'honest effort'? You?

I think the estimation for what threshold would counter terrorism might have to do with how many less innocent people are killed by western imperialism than how many Muslims put their own lives and their families lives on the line to make you feel better.

Quote:
I'm talking about how to defeat the terrorists. Cowering in fear and letting non-Muslims risk their lives on your behalf certainly doesn't work. I mentioned something about controlling the narrative earlier, the non-extremist Muslims let the extremists control the narrative for decades for whatever reason. The terrorists are winning as long as this is true. If you have a better option of how to change that do speak up. If it's easier and/or more effecive than mine I'll join your calls for it.

McHrozni
Why don't YOU go to a ME country and get on a soapbox? Put your money where your mouth is, maybe?

Real easy to insist people "just" speak up if you're in a country that doesn't have a U.S.-backed puppet dictator.

There's a huge difference between 'letting' someone do something because of complacency (or consent) and 'letting' someone do something because they have guns, munitions, explosives, international syndicates and control of social/political institutions and you don't. Self-preservation is funny that way.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 25th December 2016 at 05:57 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 08:35 AM   #216
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You don't find it objectionable to require Muslims to denounce the content of their holy books, or you will accuse them of complicity in a desire to massacre all non-Muslims?
It would be just lovely if you could read my posts and arguments for a change, you know?

It's about defeating the terrorists, nothing else. Is that so hard to grasp?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 08:36 AM   #217
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
From time to time we all tend to forget that our opinions are not facts, In this instance you are confusing your opinions and your guesses as being facts, which is why you can't understand the objections to you setting the appropriate level of protest for over a billion individuals.
If you have a more accurate or otherwise estimate then you're welcome to present it. I never claimed it to be some sort of numerological wonder you make it out to be. I told you both of these before.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 26th December 2016 at 08:38 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 08:38 AM   #218
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
You mean like clerics and national figures in Arab Gulf states denouncing acts of terrorism that take place in Europe in some cases by people who were born and lived in Europe their entire lives?

I wonder if you've actually done any research on this whatsoever since you seem blissfully unaware that the things you insist must happen have actually already happened.
I wonder if you have actually red any of my posts thus far.

I'm edging towards no, you haven't, you're just replying to various combinations of characters you saw on the screen. Prove me wrong if you can.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 08:40 AM   #219
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Great- the only way non-Muslims can tell the Muslims who are trying to kill them from the ones who aren't is for some certain number to protest against the killing, otherwise the ones whose actions don't suit the definition of "terrorist" are at least abettors. Because I'm sure the ones who are trying to kill non-Muslims would be absolutely horrified at the idea of lying about their intentions. But I'm sure you're right- enough signatures on a great big piece of paper, maybe? That would certainly put a spoke in the terrorist wheel, huh?
Either that or drive a wedge between terrorists and the rest of Muslim community, and not a wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims as they do know.

Terrorists lose in either case. Yet it must not be done, because Muslims would have to do something not mandated by law.
The horror, the horror ...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 08:41 AM   #220
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
If you have a more accurate or otherwise estimate then you're welcome to present it. I never claimed it to be some sort of numerological wonder you make it out to be. I told you both of these before.

McHrozni
Again you are not actually coming up with an estimate you are simply pulling a figure that you consider appropriate out of thin air and then using that to support your claims. So once again why do you think you get to set the appropriate level of protest for 1 or 7 billion people?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 08:44 AM   #221
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
It would be just lovely if you could read my posts and arguments for a change, you know?

It's about defeating the terrorists, nothing else. Is that so hard to grasp?

McHrozni
No it's so crude it's only too easy to "grasp". The problem is, it's senseless, unjust and provocative. Also, as I have shown, it's redolent of the xenophobic religious harassment that debased the political system in the U.K. and elsewhere in past centuries. I have given evidence to support my argument. Can you do the same in return, to sustain yours?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 12:13 PM   #222
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You don't find it objectionable to require Muslims to denounce the content of their holy books, or you will accuse them of complicity in a desire to massacre all non-Muslims? The fact that Muslims in general express no such desire and don't engage in violence isn't enough. They must all publicly denounce their holy books! You really can't understand why that's objectionable.

OK I've said I don't require all Jews to renounce illegal occupation of various lands, on pain of holding them responsible, each and every one, for these usurpations. From now on you won't find it objectionable if I require the Jewish community here publicly to denounce the Tanakh, which of course contains many passages mandating and celebrating the occupation of these very lands, and indeed the massacre of their inhabitants.

If I start a campaign along these lines, you won't understand why that might reasonably be considered objectionable?

You ideas contain some very familiar xenophobic themes. They are an exact copy of former manifestations of anti-catholicismWP.
After the Reformation and until at least the late 20th Century, majority Protestant states (especially England, Germany, the United States, and Canada) made anti-Catholicism and opposition to the Pope and Catholic rituals major political themes, with anti-Catholic sentiment at times leading to violence and religious discrimination against Catholic individuals (often derogatorily referred to in Anglophone Protestant countries as "papists" or "Romanists"). Historically, Catholics in Protestant countries were frequently (and almost always baselessly) suspected of conspiring against the state in furtherance of papal interests or to establish a political hegemony under the "Papacy", with Protestants sometimes questioning Catholic individuals' loyalty to the state and suspecting Catholics of ultimately maintaining loyalty to the Vatican rather than their domiciled country.
Here's another of your eminent precursors.
As to papists, what has been said of the protestant dissenters would hold equally strong for a general toleration of them; provided their separation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion, and their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil government. If once they could be brought to renounce the supremacy of the pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and images; nay even their transubstantiation. But while they acknowledge a foreign power, superior to the sovereignty of the kingdom, they cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them upon the footing of good subjects.
Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769), Sir WIlliam Blackstone, Offences Against God and Religion. For Sir William, was it enough that "papists" should be peaceful neighbours, law abiding citizens? No, they must also collectively and jointly "renounce the supremacy of the Pope". Who could possibly object to that? Did they? No. What happened? Nothing. In 1829 they were emancipated. What damage did that do to the UK? None at all.
I would agree with this except for the fact that Muslims in certain countries have some really abhorrent beliefs.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/

I would have no problem restricting immigration from countries like Bangladesh and Egypt.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 12:27 PM   #223
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I would agree with this except for the fact that Muslims in certain countries have some really abhorrent beliefs.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-10/

I would have no problem restricting immigration from countries like Bangladesh and Egypt.
So you would restrict immigration not on account of what immigrants believe, but because of the incidence of belief in the countries they come from? Even if they don't personally profess these beliefs?

ETA Additionally, these figures seem to fluctuate wildly from one year to the next, obviously reflecting attitudes towards particular events involving these countries. See http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-11/

Last edited by Craig B; 26th December 2016 at 12:33 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 12:41 PM   #224
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
So you would restrict immigration not on account of what immigrants believe, but because of the incidence of belief in the countries they come from? Even if they don't personally profess these beliefs?
Yes.

Quote:
ETA Additionally, these figures seem to fluctuate wildly from one year to the next, obviously reflecting attitudes towards particular events involving these countries. See http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/...-extremism-11/
It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 12:46 PM   #225
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
I wonder if you have actually red any of my posts thus far.

I'm edging towards no, you haven't, you're just replying to various combinations of characters you saw on the screen. Prove me wrong if you can.

McHrozni
I have to prove you wrong?

Or what?

You'll continue avoiding substantive replies to my posts?

All you have is veiled jabs to offer, why would I change from a successful approach that leaves you stammering and unable to counter it?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 12:53 PM   #226
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yes.



It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?
So 20% of a group of people believing something you find abhorrent means 100% of them should be barred from entry. How should the other 80% who have done nothing wrong feel about that?

I think there's a good to fair chance that you just pushed even more people in the direction of 'well they just hate us, so maybe it is justified.'
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 01:19 PM   #227
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
So 20% of a group of people believing something you find abhorrent means 100% of them should be barred from entry. How should the other 80% who have done nothing wrong feel about that?
I could care less how they feel. Our immigration policies are ours to decide and should not be based on how some random citizen from country X "feels".

Quote:
I think there's a good to fair chance that you just pushed even more people in the direction of 'well they just hate us, so maybe it is justified.'
If denial of immigration to the U.S. is the reason some person hates the U.S., they were probably going to hate us for some other reason. Not letting people from a certain country come here is a failure to benefit, not a harm. If some loony decides to blow **** up because our immigration policies aren't generous enough that's a good reason to make them less generous.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 03:39 PM   #228
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I could care less how they feel. Our immigration policies are ours to decide and should not be based on how some random citizen from country X "feels".
Says the person who is predicating their allowing someone from a given country to come here on what a poll of people in that country 'feel'.

Quote:
If denial of immigration to the U.S. is the reason some person hates the U.S., they were probably going to hate us for some other reason. Not letting people from a certain country come here is a failure to benefit, not a harm. If some loony decides to blow **** up because our immigration policies aren't generous enough that's a good reason to make them less generous.
It's more the fact that the denial comes in the form of "because you people <insert broad, insulting stereotype based on a minority held opinion here>"

I also said it pushes people in that direction, not that it becomes the sole and entire basis for it. Telling someone that the bad behavior other people who look kinda like them or come from the same geographic area as them is the metric they are to be judged by tends to piss them off. That doesn't excuse turning to violence, but it does have predictable effects in terms of increasing hostility and alienation between people.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 26th December 2016 at 03:46 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 03:54 PM   #229
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Yes.
That is, you will exclude them on account of the beliefs prevalent in their countries, even if the individuals don't share them. Let us call that proposition A
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?
But proposition A means we attribute the beliefs of the 20% to the other 80%, which makes no sense. Of course I would want most of them in my country, because your own figures show that most of them are not "people like that". You will want to interview immigrants anyway, and at that point you can investigate their personal attitudes to murders of that kind.

But perhaps you're following the idiot ideas of your President elect, who wants to exclude people on account of his assessment of their country, not the people themselves. There's no need for you to be as silly as he is. After all, you're not the President, unless your post is a disguised Trump tweet.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 04:07 PM   #230
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It doesn't fluctuate enough. Allowing immigration from Egypt, where since 2010 over 20% of Muslims agree that "suicide bombings can often/sometimes be justified against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies" is stupid. Why on Earth would you want people like that in your country?
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 05:00 PM   #231
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,571
We know for a fact that drone strikes can, will, and often do kill innocent civilians.

58% of Americans approve of the use of drone strikes. So 58% of Americans think that civilians deaths can be justified.

I'll admit the presentation of that question doesn't involve 'targeting' civilians, but since we know that is a probable and predictable outcome, it becomes a distinction without a difference. We have a desired goal or outcome in mind, that goal or outcome necessarily will include innocent people being killed, and we overwhelmingly support that goal or outcome. The only difference between the questions, then, is 'does an unknown rationalization excuse it' vs. 'does a known rationalization excuse it.'

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 26th December 2016 at 05:02 PM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th December 2016, 06:54 PM   #232
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I could care less how they feel. Our immigration policies are ours to decide and should not be based on how some random citizen from country X "feels".
Exactly so. But it's you who are basing your migration policies on "feelings of random citizen from country X". Those who disagree are saying that you should base them on the acts and opinions of the particular applicants for immigration.
Quote:
If denial of immigration to the U.S. is the reason some person hates the U.S., they were probably going to hate us for some other reason. Not letting people from a certain country come here is a failure to benefit, not a harm. If some loony decides to blow **** up because our immigration policies aren't generous enough that's a good reason to make them less generous.
This is just incoherent abuse, but nevertheless I suspect it represents your real feelings more honestly than the various tables and data which you have been presenting to us up to now.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:27 AM   #233
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I have to prove you wrong?

Or what?

You'll continue avoiding substantive replies to my posts?

All you have is veiled jabs to offer, why would I change from a successful approach that leaves you stammering and unable to counter it?
All your replies to date were attacks agains me for points I did't make, and when I point it out you claim I'm avoiding substantive answers?

I think we're done here, at least until you learn some shame. It would do you good to read the posts the other person writes too, while you're at it.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:31 AM   #234
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Again you are not actually coming up with an estimate you are simply pulling a figure that you consider appropriate out of thin air and then using that to support your claims. So once again why do you think you get to set the appropriate level of protest for 1 or 7 billion people?
If your entire argument is that you think I'm unqualified to make that estimate then please explain who would be qualified.

While you're at it you should also explain what gives you the right to decide who can make such estimates and who can't. You know, pot and kettle thing?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 01:36 AM   #235
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,569
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No it's so crude it's only too easy to "grasp". The problem is, it's senseless, unjust and provocative.
Please substantiate all three. Why is it senseless to call for non-extremist Muslims to grasp the narrative away from the crazies, why is it unjust (??) and why is it provocative?

What do you think it would provoke anyway?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 08:09 AM   #236
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Says the person who is predicating their allowing someone from a given country to come here on what a poll of people in that country 'feel'.
Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?

Quote:
It's more the fact that the denial comes in the form of "because you people <insert broad, insulting stereotype based on a minority held opinion here>"
If the minority opinion is over 20%, and the opinion is, it's ok to blow people up to protect religious ideology X, yes we're going to factor that in to our immigration policies (or we should). This has nothing to do with "you people". If people from Poland felt this way, I wouldn't want them here.

Quote:
I also said it pushes people in that direction, not that it becomes the sole and entire basis for it. Telling someone that the bad behavior other people who look kinda like them or come from the same geographic area as them is the metric they are to be judged by tends to piss them off.
Can we stop pandering to Islamic people like they're knee-jerk knuckledragging morons? If country X doesn't want Americans, is that going to push you in some direction? Radicalize you? You talk about Muslims like they're two-year olds, ready to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation.

Quote:
That doesn't excuse turning to violence, but it does have predictable effects in terms of increasing hostility and alienation between people.
So do a lot of things. I don't go through life tip-toeing around people for fear that some provocation will set them off. In the end, people choose to hate, be pissed off, and be offended. We're under no obligation to allow anyone to come here. If someone doesn't like it, they can go to some other country.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 08:21 AM   #237
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
What it comes down to, is do we use profiling when it comes to immigration? Do people from certain regions, if we allow them in at all, have to go through some form of extreme vetting that we normally wouldn't require from, say, Central America? I think it's obvious that we should do this, and very careless if we just assume every person from every country carries the same amount of risk.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 08:49 AM   #238
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?



If the minority opinion is over 20%, and the opinion is, it's ok to blow people up to protect religious ideology X, yes we're going to factor that in to our immigration policies (or we should). This has nothing to do with "you people". If people from Poland felt this way, I wouldn't want them here.



Can we stop pandering to Islamic people like they're knee-jerk knuckledragging morons? If country X doesn't want Americans, is that going to push you in some direction? Radicalize you? You talk about Muslims like they're two-year olds, ready to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation.



So do a lot of things. I don't go through life tip-toeing around people for fear that some provocation will set them off. In the end, people choose to hate, be pissed off, and be offended. We're under no obligation to allow anyone to come here. If someone doesn't like it, they can go to some other country.

/end debate
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 09:14 AM   #239
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
That is quite a different question, as you well know. I would answer "sometimes" to that one, because the end goal isn't specified. Do we bomb the civilians working at an armaments factory of the country we're at war with? Quite possibly. Do we bomb them to defend a religious ideology? Absolutely not.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2016, 09:36 AM   #240
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,503
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Certainly, if we vet a person and discover they feel like they should blow up a nightclub to protest America, that would be disqualifying. You would agree someone like that should not be allowed entry into the country?

My point was regarding the consequences of how our policies will make people feel. Immigration policy should not be based on how such policy will make people feel, it should be based on what's good for the country. Do you how hard it is for me, a non-rich person, to become a U.K. citizen? And North Korea doesn't want anything to do with me. Should I be mad about that?
One of the reasons that might incline N Koreans, or Egyptians, to wish to migrate to the USA, or the Uk or some other country, is that they are unhappy with the political situation in their own. That is why a decision about whether to admit such applicants should be made on the basis of the character of the applicant, not on the results of a survey of the country from which they come.

Of course Trump has promoted the idiotic view that you have embraced, about countries. This is a return to a pretty awful former US immigration policy, and is a clear cover for the racism that, following the Civil Rights Act, no longer openly "dares to speak its name", but has to hide behind other alleged motives.

Last edited by Craig B; 27th December 2016 at 09:38 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.