Do you think Europe's problems with Muslims will be America's one day?

[agent00f]

This has nothing to do with my point which is that specifically targeting innocent people to murder is a great evil, PERHAPS the greatest evil that man can involve himself in. It turns my stomach to see any type of apologies for it. If you are going to defend terrorism, you might as well defend intentional genocide. It seems that your values are completely in line with those of Old Testament Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. They are completely and utterly opposed to secular humanist values.

As mentioned before, war is a dirty business where people often get killed for senseless reasons. That's simply reality of the matter, and getting angry at me won't change it. If you oppose that sort of thing, then bear some responsibly for what you can do about it here at home instead of ranting about people halfway around world. On that front at least you seem rather better than the many here who only pretend to deplore senseless violence.

But in light of your accusation, it bears repeating that "evil" is a pretty abrahamic concept. In reality, humans are designed to do what's in their self-interest, and if it means killing others then it's how that goes without some artificial barrier or repercussion. That should hardly be novel if you've ever watched nature programs, and we don't call the lion "evil". Abrahamic religions popularized the concept that serious repercussions for "evil" won't just occur at the hand of man in this life.

 

[bshole]

As mentioned before, war is a dirty business where people often get killed for senseless reasons. That's simply reality of the matter, and getting angry at me won't change it. If you oppose that sort of thing, then bear some responsibly for what you can do about it here at home instead of ranting about people halfway around world. On that front at least you seem rather better than the many here who only pretend to deplore senseless violence.

But in light of your accusation, it bears repeating that "evil" is a pretty abrahamic concept. In reality, humans are designed to do what's in their self-interest, and if it means killing others then it's how that goes without some artificial barrier or repercussion. That should hardly be novel if you've ever watched nature programs, and we don't call the lion "evil". Abrahamic religions popularized the concept that serious repercussions for "evil" won't just occur at the hand of man in this life.

You are accusing humanism of being Abrahamic? I disagree. It is rather scientific. That which harms humans is evil.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/if_humanists_overlook_evil_do_they_commit_a_secular_sin/

No humanism is worthy of the name, which couldn't recognize evil. A humanism that can't objectively tell good from evil has nothing of interest to say to the rest of humanity. All the same, we keep hearing how morality can't be objective. Humanists might betray the movement and permit their view of morality to collapse into subjectivism. But that would be a sin.

Nothing you have said in any way justifies terrorism however. This seems to be a total non sequitur.

What is the basis of YOUR moral code?

 

[Blue_Max]

As mentioned before, war is a dirty business where people often get killed for senseless reasons. That's simply reality of the matter, and getting angry at me won't change it. If you oppose that sort of thing, then bear some responsibly for what you can do about it here at home instead of ranting about people halfway around world. On that front at least you seem rather better than the many here who only pretend to deplore senseless violence.

But in light of your accusation, it bears repeating that "evil" is a pretty abrahamic concept. In reality, humans are designed to do what's in their self-interest, and if it means killing others then it's how that goes without some artificial barrier or repercussion. That should hardly be novel if you've ever watched nature programs, and we don't call the lion "evil". Abrahamic religions popularized the concept that serious repercussions for "evil" won't just occur at the hand of man in this life.

By saying that, you're also implying that islam isn't evil - it's only acting in its own best interests. Therefore, even world domination is not an evil act.

A man who's horny and wants to satisfy himself is justified to grab the nearest human and pleasure himself as he sees fit? He's just doing what comes natural to him and is accepted by his native culture. [shrug]

...I dislike your "logic".

 

[agent00f]

You are accusing humanism of being Abrahamic? I disagree. It is rather scientific. That which harms humans is evil.

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/if_humanists_overlook_evil_do_they_commit_a_secular_sin/

No, the idea of good (on god's side) vs evil is a particular abrahamic emphasis. So much so that everything tend to get painted as inherently good/evil in the vain of their literature.

Other cultures tend to see the world with more nuance, with gods which possess more human foibles like self-interest.

Nothing you have said in any way justifies terrorism however. This seems to be a total non sequitur.

What is the basis of YOUR moral code?

That's because in your head my role here is "justifying" terrorism, when the point is to provide somewhat more sophisticated perspective than good vs bad.

Rather than through some artificially restrictive set of rules I try to look at world more empirically, which results in a more clear and imo interesting picture.

 

[agent00f]

By saying that, you're also implying that islam isn't evil - it's only acting in its own best interests. Therefore, even world domination is not an evil act.

A man who's horny and wants to satisfy himself is justified to grab the nearest human and pleasure himself as he sees fit? He's just doing what comes natural to him and is accepted by his native culture. [shrug]

...I dislike your "logic".

A unique aspect of human intelligence is capacity for self-awareness, which might be manifest in this case by recognizing your own self-interests and how you act to fulfill them.

 

[bshole]

No, the idea of good (on god's side) vs evil is a particular abrahamic emphasis. So much so that everything tend to get painted as inherently good/evil in the vain of their literature.

Other cultures tend to see the world with more nuance, with gods which possess more human foibles like self-interest.



That's because in your head my role here is "justifying" terrorism, when the point is to provide somewhat more sophisticated perspective than good vs bad.

Rather than through some artificially restrictive set of rules I try to look at world more empirically, which results in a more clear and imo interesting picture.

You can't even concede that terrorism is bad. Can you concede that America leveling the entire Middle East and killing every living soul is bad? I am really missing your point here. I think you and MoonBeam would get along famously.

The concept of EVIL predates Christianity and Judaism by a MILLENIA. Ever heard of Zoraster?

Here was an ancient Chinese philosopher had to say about evil (with NO interaction with Christiainity/Judaism) at all.

'If you let people follow their feelings (original feelings), they will be able to do good. This is what is meant by the saying that human nature is good. If a man does evil, it's not the fault of his natural endowment'

Surely you must be aware that the concept of evil is in no way tied to Christianity. Socrates/Plato/etc... pick any ancient philosopher not affiliated with Abrahamic religion, almost all of them discuss evil at GREAT length.

 

[techne]

You should learn a bit of law in order to understand that to kill civilians accidentally (casualties) is entirely different than to kill civilians on purpose (terrorism).

Even worse, that definition doesn't even work to your benefit since even ISIS mostly attacks other muslims in conventional warfare

Well, this is the proof you haven't understood a single word of what I've said...

When terrorists are fighting a conventional warfare against military personnel (muslim or not), they're not (in that moment) committing an act of terrorism, but (obviously) an act of war. This is implied by the very definitions of war and terrorism.

Your definition of terrorist likely only includes brown people attacking white people

And this is the proof you're a moral abomination.

This is why it's worthless to try to discuss anything with you even on a very basic intellectual level. You don't even want to understand; the only thing you want is to impose your pitiful agenda. That's why it's useless to try to educate you. You're arrogant like only a terrorist could be. Well, thank you! It's the very first time I chat with a terrorist, and I have learned a bit. Of course, it seems that you'll leave this discussion as stupid as before: as always?

 

[agent00f]

You can't even concede that terrorism is bad. Can you concede that America leveling the entire Middle East and killing every living soul is bad? I am really missing your point here. I think you and MoonBeam would get along famously.

Being bad for any party or even in terms of some categorical imperative is rather different than evil. For example, america leveling the ME for political ends or at least expediency isn't necessarily bad for America.

The concept of EVIL predates Christianity and Judaism by a MILLENIA. Ever heard of Zoraster?
Here was an ancient Chinese philosopher had to say about evil (with NO interaction with Christiainity/Judaism) at all.

Surely you must be aware that the concept of evil is in no way tied to Christianity. Socrates/Plato/etc... pick any ancient philosopher not affiliated with Abrahamic religion, almost all of them discuss evil at GREAT length.

There's a distinct difference & large spectrum between the badness/"evil" which comes from breaking some social code and the good/evil foundational to abrahamic religion.

Just because words get translated in some way doesn't mean the underlying concepts are the same.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Stories like this one continue to fan the flames of hatred towards this group of people and to be honest when you behave like this nobody wants you. If it's like this at childhood what will they be like as adults?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/22/idaho-town-torn-by-alleged-rape-fear-refugees.html

 

[agent00f]

You should learn a bit of law in order to understand that to kill civilians accidentally (casualties) is entirely different than to kill civilians on purpose (terrorism).


Well, this is the proof you haven't understood a single word of what I've said...

When terrorists are fighting a conventional warfare against military personnel (muslim or not), they're not (in that moment) committing an act of terrorism, but (obviously) an act of war. This is implied by the very definitions of war and terrorism.

I went to the trouble of teaching you how google works, but evident you still can't figure out how to find the history of civilian targets in war.

I also went to some length in the thread linked above w/ realibrad to explain how these word games for simpletons came to be. Explaining causal mechanics implies a considerable gap to someone who still can't understand anything even with a clear explanation.

And this is the proof you're a moral abomination.

This is why it's worthless to try to discuss anything with you even on a very basic intellectual level. You don't even want to understand; the only thing you want is to impose your pitiful agenda. That's why it's useless to try to educate you. You're arrogant like only a terrorist could be. Well, thank you! It's the very first time I chat with a terrorist, and I have learned a bit. Of course, it seems that you'll leave this discussion as stupid as before: as always?

This is a pretty good example of the good/evil concept which pervades the modern world, popularized through abrahamic regions. Adherents who invariably believe themselves "good" are mentally incapable of recognizing independent interests, instead they're limited to the simple "me good, you bad" framework in their head.

 

[techne]

I went to the trouble of teaching you how google works

I'm afraid you can't teach pretty much anything...

This is a pretty good example of the good/evil concept which pervades the modern world, popularized through abrahamic regions. Adherents who invariably believe themselves "good" are mentally incapable of recognizing independent interests, instead they're limited to the simple "me good, you bad" framework in their head.

LOL!... Any man from any primitive tribe from any part of the world had (and still has) concepts about good and evil: much (much!) before Abraham! If you only were able to read books...

But I agree in one point. Your framework is not "me good, you bad". I know that! Your framework is "you bad, me good". You was defined as a slave more than a century ago... and obviously you don't know what the hell I'm talking about...

 

[bshole]

Being bad for any party or even in terms of some categorical imperative is rather different than evil. For example, america leveling the ME for political ends or at least expediency isn't necessarily bad for America.

You are totally losing me. I believe you are arguing that there isn't any such thing as good or evil and that might makes right. Whatever helps your tribe is acceptable no matter what you do to other tribes to achieve that end. Is that your point? I am not sure what exactly are disagreeing about here.

What really confuses me is that you seem to oppose limits on Muslim immigrants from Syria on moral grounds while simultaneously arguing that good/evil don't exist thus removing your moral justification for opposition. Could you dumb down your position to a level that I can understand it?

 

[agent00f]

I'm afraid you can't teach pretty much anything...

Trouble teaching idiots isn't a problem exclusive to me.

LOL!... Any man from any primitive tribe from any part of the world had (and still has) concepts about good and evil: much (much!) before Abraham! If you only were able to read books...

But I agree in one point. Your framework is not "me good, you bad". I know that! Your framework is "you bad, me good". You was defined as a slave more than a century ago... and obviously you don't know what the hell I'm talking about...

For example, it's pretty obvious only one of us is looking at the world through a simple good vs evil mind, and the simpleton stubbornly believes everyone else does (or at least should), too. And speaking of a master-slave relationship, the abrahamic religions exemplify slave morality as defined by the people who came up with the terminology. Masters do what they want; americans for the all the contrition about morality are hardly slaves in the intl scene.

You are totally losing me. I believe you are arguing that there isn't any such thing as good or evil and that might makes right. Whatever helps your tribe is acceptable no matter what you do to other tribes to achieve that end. Is that your point? I am not sure what exactly are disagreeing about here.

I'm explaining how things work in real world practice as opposed to how it's rationalized by the religious. The point is to understand the situation better--same reason as we do science or philosophy.

What really confuses me is that you seem to oppose limits on Muslim immigrants from Syria on moral grounds while simultaneously arguing that good/evil don't exist thus removing your moral justification for opposition. Could you dumb down your position to a level that I can understand it?

If someone claims to be X, it's only apropos to hold them to that claim. For example, if someone evaluates the world in terms of morality, it makes sense to point out if they're amoral. It makes further sense to keep pointing out when they only care about morality to the extent that telling themselves they're good helps them sleep at night.

 

[bshole]

If someone claims to be X, it's only apropos to hold them to that claim. For example, if someone evaluates the world in terms of morality, it makes sense to point out if they're amoral. It makes further sense to keep pointing out when they only care about morality to the extent that telling themselves they're good helps them sleep at night.

Um... right. You and I have the same communication problem that me and Moonbeam have. I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. I sense that you disagree with me somehow.

Let me straight out ask you. Do you have an opinion on immigrants coming in from Syria? Should we let more in? Should we restrict them?

 

[agent00f]

Like most IRL matters, there are various overlapping pros/cons and determining any sort of compromise for all parties involved is non-trivial.

The point is on these complex questions most people simply don't understand the situation well enough to meaningfully discuss answers, which is why it's key to explain the situation first. The current situation is that many if not most participants are too emotionally invested in rationalizations instead of focusing on the actual realities of immigration or whatever.

To use a simple analogy, let's say we're playing basketball. Most of these team sports are pretty sophisticated with many basic skills building up to coordination/strategy and so on. So if some jokers come along who aren't very good and mostly argue about shoes or their favorite players' moves, that's not exactly a recipe for success. Do should they get those new curry shoes & exploit the man to man on them with a cross-over fadeway? Does it really matter at that point?

 

[techne]

For example, it's pretty obvious only one of us is looking at the world through a simple good vs evil mind, and the simpleton stubbornly believes everyone else does (or at least should), too.

Precisely! Now you just need to realize that the simpleton is you.

By the way, only a simpleton would accuse the "atheism" for the worst massacres in the last hundred years. Your theoretical level stands below the level of any four years old kid.

 

[agent00f]

Precisely! Now you just need to realize that the simpleton is you.

By the way, only a simpleton would accuse the "atheism" for the worst massacres in the last hundred years. Your theoretical level stands below the level of any four years old kid.

Consider for a while how a simpleton might reply to the claim that they're simple. Compare this to how you replied.

 

[techne]

You seem to be someone who might appreciate science, so let's do some empirical observation instead of suppositional rhetoric.

In the last hundred years (though this is totally flexible), let's see who's actually killed more of some persevered enemy: christians, atheists, or muslims. We're not looking for exact figures, just ballpark. Off the top of my head, they're something like at least dozens of millions, probably many millions, and a whole lot less, respectively.

These are your own words. Considering that the "atheists" cannot be blamed for any massacre in history, I'd say that I'm seeing here the bigotry and hatred words of a simpleton.

 

[agent00f]

These are your own words. Considering that the "atheists" cannot be blamed for any massacre in history, I'd say that I'm seeing here the bigotry and hatred words of a simpleton.

""atheists" cannot be blamed for any massacre in history" --simpleton

 

[techne]

Atheism is a suspension of belief.

If you blame "the atheists" for crimes committed by men guided by well established ideologies (beliefs), you're simpleton (and a bigot) beyond any repair.

 

[bshole]

Atheism is a suspension of belief.

If you blame "the atheists" for crimes committed by men guided by well established ideologies (beliefs), you're simpleton (and a bigot) beyond any repair.

Theists like to blame rationalists for all the bad in the world despite the objective evidence showing the opposite.

 

[agent00f]

Atheism is a suspension of belief.

If you blame "the atheists" for crimes committed by men guided by well established ideologies (beliefs), you're simpleton (and a bigot) beyond any repair.

The point is that suspension of belief doesn't appear to diminish crimes committed. To be rather certain, it's pretty evident they hold the same kind of belief as religion nuts; eg they're the good guys, can do no wrong, etc. This isn't a difficult point to observe, and you should ponder what kind of people have a lot of trouble grasping simple points.

 

[Fulle]

These are your own words. Considering that the "atheists" cannot be blamed for any massacre in history, I'd say that I'm seeing here the bigotry and hatred words of a simpleton.

I'm generally against most extreme ideologies, to be clear, but its a little misguided to assume that atheists weren't involved in any atrocities. Atheism is associated with communism, and clearly there's been many examples of massacres under communist regimes.

 

[techne]

Theists like to blame rationalists for all the bad in the world despite the objective evidence showing the opposite.

Agree. But remember that someone can be a rationalist and, at the same time, to remain attached (I wouldn't use the word "believe" here) to God: for instance, Spinoza.

On the other hand, communism is a rational doctrine (the "scientific socialism", would say Marx). The Holocaust was also perpetrated in a very scientific and rational way by a theist leader...

I want to point to a much simpler problem: to demonstrate that "atheism" is a very weak concept in you want to use it to explain historical facts.

 

[techne]

The point is that suspension of belief doesn't appear to diminish crimes committed.

Exactly. Of course, you're not smart enough to note that you are proving my point when you say this. Yes, a suspension of belief is barely able to mobilize the will: for the good or for the bad.