Shooting in Munich, let me guess who is responsoible

[Shadowy Man]

Who is being protective of Islam?

Are you being protective of Christianity by giving that religion a pass while you encourage fascism and intolerance toward Islam?

Yes I am. When those Christian terrorists in France broke into that Mosque and beheaded that Iman, while they shouted "praise Jesus," I was all for giving them a pass.

They save their blasphemy for when they're raping children with impunity.

 

[Bomb#20]

In other words, his ignorance of why harming others is bad allows him to pick up an Islamic text and use that to justify his awfulness in the same way that Adolf Hitler and many Germans picked up Darwin's Origin of the Species and used it to justify eugenics and genocide.

"Fight those who are not the fittest, until they pay the unfitness tax with willing submission and are subdued." - Charles Darwin​

You're right, they both use their respective texts to justify their respective awfulness in the same way.

Which is a dishonest straw man and you should feel bad for making it.

It's not dishonest and it's not a straw man. I pointed out that you said something stupid. It is painfully obvious that Hitler and Tom's Islamist terrorist use those respective texts to justify their awfulness in different ways. I didn't misrepresent your position -- I made no claim about what's going on in your head. Your words speak for themselves. If you meant something different from what you wrote, that's on you, not on me.

I do feel bad that you have a moral compass that apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about fairness to your out-group, so it doesn't overrule your impulses to make false damaging claims about them with reckless disregard for the truth. Fortunately not very damaging, since only an idiot would believe your accusations.

Hitler used the theories presented by Darwin, true statements about the state of nature and the origins of the complexities of life, and used that as a means to justify his culture's war against all other ethnicities. If you have ever actually read the book, there's a lot in there about striving, violence, and extinction. That the struggle for existence is going to be at the expense of something else, always. As much as I dislike it, even something entirely true can be and often WILL be twisted by people with the desire to be solipsistic or darwinistic.

But the step of applying the naturalistic fallacy and illogically jumping from "This is how nature works" to "Go and do likewise" was supplied by Hitler. Tom's Islamist terrorist doesn't make the same jump to an unimplied conclusion, because Islamic texts already contain the "Go and do likewise" part. That is using the texts in different ways. This is not rocket science.

 

[KeepTalking]

In other words, his ignorance of why harming others is bad allows him to pick up an Islamic text and use that to justify his awfulness in the same way that Adolf Hitler and many Germans picked up Darwin's Origin of the Species and used it to justify eugenics and genocide.

"Fight those who are not the fittest, until they pay the unfitness tax with willing submission and are subdued." - Charles Darwin​

You're right, they both use their respective texts to justify their respective awfulness in the same way.

Which is a dishonest straw man and you should feel bad for making it.

It's not dishonest and it's not a straw man. I pointed out that you said something stupid. It is painfully obvious that Hitler and Tom's Islamist terrorist use those respective texts to justify their awfulness in different ways. I didn't misrepresent your position -- I made no claim about what's going on in your head. Your words speak for themselves. If you meant something different from what you wrote, that's on you, not on me.

I do feel bad that you have a moral compass that apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about fairness to your out-group, so it doesn't overrule your impulses to make false damaging claims about them with reckless disregard for the truth. Fortunately not very damaging, since only an idiot would believe your accusations.

Hitler used the theories presented by Darwin, true statements about the state of nature and the origins of the complexities of life, and used that as a means to justify his culture's war against all other ethnicities. If you have ever actually read the book, there's a lot in there about striving, violence, and extinction. That the struggle for existence is going to be at the expense of something else, always. As much as I dislike it, even something entirely true can be and often WILL be twisted by people with the desire to be solipsistic or darwinistic.

But the step of applying the naturalistic fallacy and illogically jumping from "This is how nature works" to "Go and do likewise" was supplied by Hitler. Tom's Islamist terrorist doesn't make the same jump to an unimplied conclusion, because Islamic texts already contain the "Go and do likewise" part. That is using the texts in different ways. This is not rocket science.

So, you don't thank providing a fake quote from Darwin was dishonest?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hasty generalization is a fallacy so it applies whenever it is supposed to. Now could you answer the question?

By acknowledging the commonality of events, even if I don't like the conclusion.

So what do the IRA, the KKK, the Tamil Tigers, and ISIL all have in common?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Religion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

yes, pretty much several religions, not all of which are abrahamic. also disempowerment

 

[Jarhyn]

In other words, his ignorance of why harming others is bad allows him to pick up an Islamic text and use that to justify his awfulness in the same way that Adolf Hitler and many Germans picked up Darwin's Origin of the Species and used it to justify eugenics and genocide.

"Fight those who are not the fittest, until they pay the unfitness tax with willing submission and are subdued." - Charles Darwin​

You're right, they both use their respective texts to justify their respective awfulness in the same way.

Which is a dishonest straw man and you should feel bad for making it.

It's not dishonest and it's not a straw man. I pointed out that you said something stupid. It is painfully obvious that Hitler and Tom's Islamist terrorist use those respective texts to justify their awfulness in different ways. I didn't misrepresent your position -- I made no claim about what's going on in your head. Your words speak for themselves. If you meant something different from what you wrote, that's on you, not on me.

I do feel bad that you have a moral compass that apparently doesn't give a rat's ass about fairness to your out-group, so it doesn't overrule your impulses to make false damaging claims about them with reckless disregard for the truth. Fortunately not very damaging, since only an idiot would believe your accusations.

Hitler used the theories presented by Darwin, true statements about the state of nature and the origins of the complexities of life, and used that as a means to justify his culture's war against all other ethnicities. If you have ever actually read the book, there's a lot in there about striving, violence, and extinction. That the struggle for existence is going to be at the expense of something else, always. As much as I dislike it, even something entirely true can be and often WILL be twisted by people with the desire to be solipsistic or darwinistic.

But the step of applying the naturalistic fallacy and illogically jumping from "This is how nature works" to "Go and do likewise" was supplied by Hitler. Tom's Islamist terrorist doesn't make the same jump to an unimplied conclusion, because Islamic texts already contain the "Go and do likewise" part. That is using the texts in different ways. This is not rocket science.

So, you don't thank providing a fake quote from Darwin was dishonest?

Not only that, but the point was entirely that the 'go and do likewise' part was unnecessary for the justification of violence.

Hell, people STILL use it as a justificationfor being awful. Survival of the fittest has been an excuse for attacking those groups seen as 'less fit' ever since the mechanism of evolution was first explained.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, you don't thank providing a fake quote from Darwin was dishonest?

No, of course it wasn't. Do you think it was dishonest? If you think it was dishonest, that would take me very much by surprise, because I did not take you for some sort of space alien who's unfamiliar with human speech.

In case you are some sort of space alien who's unfamiliar with human speech and actually need to have this explained to you, dishonesty is attempting to deceive. A fake quote self-evidently isn't an attempt to deceive when it is intended to be recognized as fake, it is designed to be obviously fake, and it is plainly an exercise in sarcasm. Providing a fake quote was a hopefully memorable way of exhibiting the sort of thing Darwin would have to have said in order for Jarhyn's claim (i.e, that the texts were used in the same way) to be correct. The whole point of writing the fake quote was for readers to look at it and immediately think "No, Darwin did not say that." So why the bejesus would you imagine I could have meant to deceive anyone into thinking that that quote was real? If it were real then it would imply Jarhyn was right.

Do you think that's dishonest?

 

[Bomb#20]

That doesn't follow at all.

Nope.

Islam is driving both the terrorist and the accountant to do exactly the same thing: treat "God wants you to." as a good reason to believe something and a good reason to do something. How do you figure that isn't inherently evil? "It is wrong, always, everywhere, for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence."

Your argument is wrong because it is based on a number of flaws. 1st, it assumes Islam is driving their actions rather than simply one of many factors.

In the first place, "one of many factors" is a new argument for your contention, not the argument you previously made. Even if it's a good new argument, that doesn't change the fact that your contention doesn't follow from your previous argument, which is what I said.

And in the second place, "their actions" is ambiguous. Which of their actions are you talking about? If you mean Islam is only one of many factors affecting the two Muslims' respective practices of terrorism and public accountancy, yes, that's true, but so what? My argument didn't assume Islam is driving those actions. My argument only assumes Islam is driving the particular action I specified: treating "God wants you to." as a good reason. If you're proposing that Islam is not driving that action, but is simply one of may factors, share. Name another factor. What the heck do you think there is besides religion that would incline a person to treat "God wants you to." as a good reason? It's not as though God Himself is actually appearing and impressing theists with His virtue, His charismatic personality, or His power and vengefulness.

2nd, it conflates "wrong" with "evil". For example. your argument is wrong but it is not evil.

I'm not conflating those at all. Let me be very clear here: I'm not condemning Islam for teaching a falsehood; I'm condemning it for teaching immorality. It isn't just that "God wants you to" isn't in point of fact a good reason. It's that treating "God wants you to" as a good reason is morally equivalent to handing your car keys to a drunk. Your body is a tool, just like a car, only more dangerous; and it's your conscience's job to make sure that tool is used safely; and when you let something else trump your conscience, your conscience is abdicating its responsibility.

3rd, belief (as opposed to knowledge) requires some element of faith which means there is insufficient evidence. People act all the time based on belief. Most human interaction between strangers of all types is based on the belief of trust. There is nothing inherently wrong acting on belief when there is insufficient evidence.

In case you didn't recognize it, I was referencing W. K. Clifford's famous 19th-century essay. If you have a major disagreement with Clifford, what's wrong with his argument? If you're just proposing to carve out a minor exception for beliefs about insignificant or abstract matters, suit yourself, but it probably doesn't change anything with respect to the terrorist and the accountant.

Normal trust of strangers is based on evidence -- we have ample experience with strangers behaving well, and we know there's a good psychological explanation for them behaving well, since we live under governments that enforce good behavior. Under hunter-gatherer conditions there's a lot less trust of strangers, for good reason.

 

[laughing dog]

In the first place, "one of many factors" is a new argument for your contention, not the argument you previously made.

You are mistaken.

Even if it's a good new argument, that doesn't change the fact that your contention doesn't follow from your previous argument, which is what I said.

Repeating a false claim does not make true. You are mistaken.

And in the second place, "their actions" is ambiguous. Which of their actions are you talking about? If you mean Islam is only one of many factors affecting the two Muslims' respective practices of terrorism and public accountancy, yes, that's true, but so what? My argument didn't assume Islam is driving those actions. My argument only assumes Islam is driving the particular action I specified: treating "God wants you to." as a good reason. If you're proposing that Islam is not driving that action, but is simply one of may factors, share. Name another factor. What the heck do you think there is besides religion that would incline a person to treat "God wants you to." as a good reason? It's not as though God Himself is actually appearing and impressing theists with His virtue, His charismatic personality, or His power and vengefulness.

These particular terrorists did not say "Because God wants me to" (and terrorists do not commonly say "Gold to me to"). Your argument assumes facts not in evidence. So, you are mistaken, again.

I'm not conflating those at all. Let me be very clear here: I'm not condemning Islam for teaching a falsehood; I'm condemning it for teaching immorality. It isn't just that "God wants you to" isn't in point of fact a good reason. It's that treating "God wants you to" as a good reason is morally equivalent to handing your car keys to a drunk. Your body is a tool, just like a car, only more dangerous; and it's your conscience's job to make sure that tool is used safely; and when you let something else trump your conscience, your conscience is abdicating its responsibility.

Thank you for clarification.

In case you didn't recognize it, I was referencing W. K. Clifford's famous 19th-century essay. ..

I don't which 19th century essay you were referencing. People act on belief all of the time. And belief does not require knowledge. The fact you have a problem with reality is your problem, not mine.

Normal trust of strangers is based on evidence -- we have ample experience with strangers behaving well, and we know there's a good psychological explanation for them behaving well, since we live under governments that enforce good behavior. Under hunter-gatherer conditions there's a lot less trust of strangers, for good reason.

No one has ample evidence that any specific person whom they do not know is trustworthy. When we go into a restaurant to eat, we believe the chef and the servers are trustworthy but we don't know they are trustworthy.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Of course our beliefs affect our behavior. Never said they didn't. If a person didn't believe in a religion there would be no way that person or anyone else could use that as a reason to do horrible things. I'm just saying that being rid of religion will not solve this sort of behavior. People will find other reasons to be dicks, like heterophobia or xenophobia. You know.

Some amount of people would be violent dicks with or without religion, just like some amount would not eat bacon with or without religion.

I'm not sure why we would expect it to be the same amount.

Because you don't need religion. As the FBI has discovered most mass-shooters involve a pattern of alienation, bullying (real or perceived), and a want to inflict harm on society for rejecting them.

 

[iolo]

It fascinates me that so many Americans are eaten up with hate that they spend such hours ranting about a religion of which they know nothing, and a 'Left' of which they know less, and never dream of finding out what Islam is about, meeting Muslims, or getting to know what the human race tends to believe here on earth rather than with them on the Moon. Heil Trump, and death to Intelligence!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

They're not "protective of Islam," but instead interested in objectivity and in not making hasty generalizations about people. How do you personally try to discount your own biases due to birth, nationality, and religion of family and friends, when you analyze something?

Does that extend to followers of other religions, like Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, Mormons, etc., or are those religions not high enough on the progressive stack?

It can, any of these can spawn violence militant. Mormonism can be blamed for the Bundy's wanting to kill federal employees.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Does that extend to followers of other religions, like Scientology, Westboro Baptist Church, Mormons, etc., or are those religions not high enough on the progressive stack?

It can, any of these can spawn violence militant. Mormonism can be blamed for the Bundy's wanting to kill federal employees.

Indeed they can. The Christians were on the rampage for hundreds of years with witch hunts, crusades, scapegoating the Jews, and forced conversions. It's really in the first part of the 20th Century this died down. Christianity is not to blame but those Christians involved were. This also applies to Islam.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It can, any of these can spawn violence militant. Mormonism can be blamed for the Bundy's wanting to kill federal employees.

Indeed they can. The Christians were on the rampage for hundreds of years with witch hunts, crusades, scapegoating the Jews, and forced conversions. It's really in the first part of the 20th Century this died down. Christianity is not to blame but those Christians involved were. This also applies to Islam.

Did you mean first part of the 21st century and not the 20th century? Because in the 20th century there was Hitler who was Catholic and his crap involved religion. In the beginning of the 21st century there was GWB saying God told him to invade Iraq. So I am confused on which century you mean.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, you don't thank providing a fake quote from Darwin was dishonest?

No, of course it wasn't. Do you think it was dishonest? If you think it was dishonest, that would take me very much by surprise, because I did not take you for some sort of space alien who's unfamiliar with human speech.

In case you are some sort of space alien who's unfamiliar with human speech and actually need to have this explained to you, dishonesty is attempting to deceive. A fake quote self-evidently isn't an attempt to deceive when it is intended to be recognized as fake, it is designed to be obviously fake, and it is plainly an exercise in sarcasm. Providing a fake quote was a hopefully memorable way of exhibiting the sort of thing Darwin would have to have said in order for Jarhyn's claim (i.e, that the texts were used in the same way) to be correct. The whole point of writing the fake quote was for readers to look at it and immediately think "No, Darwin did not say that." So why the bejesus would you imagine I could have meant to deceive anyone into thinking that that quote was real? If it were real then it would imply Jarhyn was right.

Do you think that's dishonest?

The above Lincoln meme is obviously a fake because it is anachronistic, the internet did not exist when Lincoln was alive. The Koran passage that you changed and attributed to Darwin contains nothing anachronistic in that way, as it could have been made by a person speaking in Darwin's time (it was actually made centuries earlier). The internet is full of memes improperly, and in many cases dishonestly, attributing statements to people who did not make them, and idiots on the internet fall for it all the time. For all I knew, you were one of those people falling for a meme, but I thought you were more intelligent than that, so I attributed it to you providing a fake quote on purpose. That is pretty much the definition of dishonesty. Instead of making a fool of yourself by defending the dishonesty, you probably should have noted in that same post that you were providing a fake quote, and laid out your reasoning for doing so.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have a meeting with the other Greys to hash out how we are going to wrest control of this planet from the Reptillians.

 

[Juma]

Abstractions doesnt make terror attacks. islam is an abstraction. Groups of people influence people that makes terror attacks. Thats why attacking islam for the terror is wrong.

 

[barbos]

Islam is just very convenient ideology for turning disorganized scambags into organized terrorists.

 

[Trausti]

Tell these guys that Islam has nothing to do with Islam: http://www.clarionproject.org/factsheets-files/islamic-state-magazine-dabiq-fifteen-breaking-the-cross.pdf

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Islam is just very convenient ideology for turning disorganized scambags into organized terrorists.

I think it's more than that--it's a tool for turning the unhappy into terrorists. Without Islam many of them would have done nothing wrong.