djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2015 19:45:16 GMT -5
but that is the thing, right? in the US, anyway, the KKK, the Black Panthers, or "whoever" have the right to say those things, and to NOT be held to account for the actions that may or may not result from them. ditto for rock bands that advocate violence on others. i believe that all are protected by the 1st amendment. i am not saying that ISIS has first amendment rights. they don't. they are outside the US. i am just saying that it is an inversion of our contemporaneous notion of justice in the US. we typically ONLY hold to account those who undertake the actions. now, if it were shown that ISIS funded or directly instructed the people involved in the SB shooting, then that would be a different thing. and yeah, i get that some of you don't care. thanks for pointing that out over and over again. If they aren't covered by free speech, that means that they are to be held accountable for this for sure then. they aren't covered by free speech because they are not protected by the constitution. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) i was actually making a rather trivial concession, in this case.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 22, 2024 21:24:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2015 19:51:49 GMT -5
Looks like daddy saw some signs of radicalization after all www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/06/dad-san-bernardino-shooter-agreed-isil-obssessed-israel/76890108/
The father of San Bernardino suspect Syed Rizwan Farook told an Italian newspaper that his son expressed support for the Islamic State group and was obsessed with Israel.
The father, who is also named Syed Farook, told La Stampa that his son took on an overly conservative outlook on Islam and at least once expressed support for ideas promoted by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIL or ISIS.
"He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel," the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of this other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif. I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist," the elder Farook told the newspaper. "Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there."
very interesting and troubling. Honestly I'm not even sure anymore which is more troubling. The "we knew nothing" I kept hearing the last few days or "There, there son. Israel is going Bye Bye any way, be patient"
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 6, 2015 19:53:08 GMT -5
I don't have low self-expectations!! i never claimed that. i said you have low expectations, and i was referring to others. namely ME. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/smiley.png) And yes, of course I know what it means. Again calling me stupid. i didn't ask you "what it means". i asked you if you knew the current LEGAL definition of the term. and i didn't call you stupid. sorry if you took it that way.People often think that those of us lucky enough to live in the USA have complete freedom of speech ... I'm just stating the obvious (since 1919). We do not have the right to incite riots or terrorist activities incitement does not apply to terrorist activities, in the general sense, and in the sense being discussed, here. the standard is from Brandenburg -vs- Ohio. Brandenburg actually advocated terrorist activities, so it is DIRECTLY applicable, Ombud. edit: that case was made in 1969, so unless you made a typo, i am not sure what you meant by 1919. The official government website states "Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)." I am not correcting their website. If you want the brief it's www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/first-amendment-freedom-of-expression/schenck-v-united-states/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2015 19:59:48 GMT -5
incitement does not apply to terrorist activities, in the general sense, and in the sense being discussed, here. the standard is from Brandenburg -vs- Ohio. Brandenburg actually advocated terrorist activities, so it is DIRECTLY applicable, Ombud. edit: that case was made in 1969, so unless you made a typo, i am not sure what you meant by 1919. The official government website states "Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)." I am not correcting their website that is not the current standard for incitement. Brandenburg was brought before the court in 1969 for incitement. his case went all the way to the SCOTUS, and he won.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2015 20:02:31 GMT -5
this case is interesting for a number of reasons, and was cited in the Brandenburg case. edit: i didn't know the Schenck case before tonight, so thanks for bringing it up. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/rose.gif)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2015 21:14:31 GMT -5
not that it matters these days, anyway. if they merely SUSPECT you of being a terrorist, they can indefinitely detain you without trial.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 6, 2015 22:44:51 GMT -5
You didn't say "solely responsible" either. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/idunno.gif) ISIS isn't solely responsible for these attacks, but their rhetoric is clearly what motivated the shooters. The wife swore allegiance to their leader and carried out his express will, even though there was no direct contact between them. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. They condone it. As I see it, these three elements--ISIS as the motivator, ISIS as the organization to whom loyalty was sworn, ISIS accepting that oath and the shooters' actions--are sufficient reason to call this an "ISIS attack". no, i didn't. but usually when adjectives are missing, the assumption is ALL or NONE. in this case, all. i accepted your response, Virgil, on the basis that you obviously took it as partial responsibility. let's not get into semantics discussions. it upsets VB. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) edit: however, i don't believe that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, did they? Yes and no. www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.htmlSo... officially "no", but practically "yes"? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) In any case, it's enough to prove to me that "ISIS accept[ed] that oath and the shooters' actions" (my third criterion).
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 6, 2015 22:48:01 GMT -5
Feed the monster. Really good thinking. Yeah.
In the meantime, what are you doing to actually make it more difficult for the monster to have its way? Anything?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 6, 2015 23:03:47 GMT -5
no, i didn't. but usually when adjectives are missing, the assumption is ALL or NONE. in this case, all. i accepted your response, Virgil, on the basis that you obviously took it as partial responsibility. let's not get into semantics discussions. it upsets VB. ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/wink.png) edit: however, i don't believe that ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, did they? Yes and no. www.cnn.com/2015/12/05/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.htmlSo... officially "no", but practically "yes"? ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/huh.gif) In any case, it's enough to prove to me that "ISIS accept[ed] that oath and the shooters' actions" (my third criterion). i asked a very specific question: did ISIS claim responsibility? it looks to me like the answer is NO. and let's be clear- it is really easy to claim responsibility, even if you don't own it. and terrorist groups seem to LOVE to do it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Dec 6, 2015 23:39:20 GMT -5
i asked a very specific question: did ISIS claim responsibility? it looks to me like the answer is NO. and let's be clear- it is really easy to claim responsibility, even if you don't own it. and terrorist groups seem to LOVE to do it. It has been the habit of Daesh to claim responsibility as soon as an atrocity is committed if, indeed, they are responsible. In some cases, they've even warned in advance. They're not known for waiting to beat their own chests or toot their own horns.
|
|
GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl
Senior Associate
"How you win matters." Ender, Ender's Game
Joined: Jan 2, 2011 13:33:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,291
|
Post by GRG a/k/a goldenrulegirl on Dec 7, 2015 1:45:28 GMT -5
i asked a very specific question: did ISIS claim responsibility? it looks to me like the answer is NO. and let's be clear- it is really easy to claim responsibility, even if you don't own it. and terrorist groups seem to LOVE to do it. It has been the habit of Daesh to claim responsibility as soon as an atrocity is committed if, indeed, they are responsible. In some cases, they've even warned in advance. They're not known for waiting to beat their own chests or toot their own horns. I'll repeat my belief that they are not claiming responsibility because a woman was the mastermind. The wife pledged her allegiance to Isis under a pseudonym. I wonder if that pseudonym was a male name since Isis doesn't recruit women as soldiers, only as support personnel?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2015 8:55:07 GMT -5
i asked a very specific question: did ISIS claim responsibility? it looks to me like the answer is NO. and let's be clear- it is really easy to claim responsibility, even if you don't own it. and terrorist groups seem to LOVE to do it. You're not asking the right questions. "Is ISIS responsible?" "Did ISIS claim responsibility?" How about: "ISIS' express will is being carried out in America by allegiant individuals. Americans are dead. Why do the semantics of 'responsible' even matter in this case?" As I see it, to cut ISIS out of the loop, we have to prove that either i) this attack would have occurred with or without ISIS' influence, or ii) this attack wasn't fully consistent with ISIS' express goals. All the evidence thus far points to both i and ii being false. As for "feeding the monster", I never cease to be amazed by the arrogance of the left in assuming that by simply spinning a yarn, assigning favourable and unfavourable terms to different ideologies, we can win the war for people's hearts and minds. Orwellian labeling is the domain of liberals and progressives, not fundamentalists. "Pro choice", "homophobia", "war on women", "gay marriage", "affirmative action", "hate speech", "social justice", "moderate Islam", "reproductive rights", "Daesh". You're not fooling anybody who isn't already on your side. Seriously. I'm as fundamentalist as anyone else on this board, hence take it from me: the opinions of a fundamentalist don't change one whit based on what you deign to call something. That's your folly, and you can keep it. You warn that we shouldn't dote on ISIS' role in these attacks, we ought to eschew the name "Islamic State" because these things convey feelings of legitimacy to the enemy. The war could be won or lost based on what we call them. What incredible hubris. Let me be the first to tell you: ISIS feels legitimate, fundamentalists gravitating towards ISIS believe it to be legitimate, regardless of how you and western leaders struggle to frame the conflict. American conservatives, especially fundamentalists, consider ISIS complicit in these recent attacks regardless of how much we bicker over the nuances of "responsibility". Both groups know this attack was a minor victory for ISIS. Both groups will call it this in spite of the left's balking at acknowledging "victory" or ISIS' integral role in motivating the shootings. Both groups acknowledge that this is a war between the west and fundamentalist Islam. To think that your sophistic gymnastics with labels and terminology is going to sway our (as in, fundamentalists') hearts and minds... What incredible hubris. Please note that I'm not directing this criticism at you, DJ. Yours just happened to be the reply it got appended to.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,643
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 7, 2015 10:50:21 GMT -5
... Let me be the first to tell you: ISIS feels legitimate, fundamentalists gravitating towards ISIS believe it to be legitimate, regardless of how you and western leaders struggle to frame the conflict. American conservatives, especially fundamentalists, consider ISIS complicit in these recent attacks regardless of how much we bicker over the nuances of "responsibility". Both groups know this attack was a minor victory for ISIS. Both groups will call it this in spite of the left's balking at acknowledging "victory" or ISIS' integral role in motivating the shootings. Both groups acknowledge that this is a war between the west and fundamentalist Islam. To think that your sophistic gymnastics with labels and terminology is going to sway our (as in, fundamentalists') hearts and minds... What incredible hubris. ... I agree that there is no hope to sway the hearts and minds of fundamentalists. They are closed and locked. The battle is for the vast majority of people who aren't fundamentalists.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 7, 2015 11:44:08 GMT -5
Thoughts towards immigration can be fluid .... after much consideration regarding Muslim and Hispanic migrants (particularly Mexican and Central American), my stance towards the Hispanic population is softening. After all, they haven't committed a terrorist act and my resolve against all Muslims is unfortunately also becoming more fluid. Finding myself not trusting any of them that I haven't personally met .... not liking myself for that, but hey, it is what it is
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 12:11:31 GMT -5
i asked a very specific question: did ISIS claim responsibility? it looks to me like the answer is NO. and let's be clear- it is really easy to claim responsibility, even if you don't own it. and terrorist groups seem to LOVE to do it. You're not asking the right questions. "Is ISIS responsible?" "Did ISIS claim responsibility?" How about: "ISIS' express will is being carried out in America by allegiant individuals. Americans are dead. Why do the semantics of 'responsible' even matter in this case?" As I see it, to cut ISIS out of the loop, we have to prove that either i) this attack would have occurred with or without ISIS' influence, or ii) this attack wasn't fully consistent with ISIS' express goals. All the evidence thus far points to both i and ii being false. As for "feeding the monster", I never cease to be amazed by the arrogance of the left in assuming that by simply spinning a yarn, assigning favourable and unfavourable terms to different ideologies, we can win the war for people's hearts and minds. Orwellian labeling is the domain of liberals and progressives, not fundamentalists. "Pro choice", "homophobia", "war on women", "gay marriage", "affirmative action", "hate speech", "social justice", "moderate Islam", "reproductive rights", "Daesh". You're not fooling anybody who isn't already on your side. Seriously. I'm as fundamentalist as anyone else on this board, hence take it from me: the opinions of a fundamentalist don't change one whit based on what you deign to call something. That's your folly, and you can keep it. You warn that we shouldn't dote on ISIS' role in these attacks, we ought to eschew the name "Islamic State" because these things convey feelings of legitimacy to the enemy. The war could be won or lost based on what we call them. Let me be the first to tell you: ISIS feels legitimate, fundamentalists gravitating towards ISIS believe it to be legitimate, regardless of how you and western leaders struggle to frame the conflict. American conservatives, especially fundamentalists, consider ISIS complicit in these recent attacks regardless of how much we bicker over the nuances of "responsibility". Both groups know this attack was a minor victory for ISIS. Both groups will call it this in spite of the left's balking at acknowledging "victory" or ISIS' integral role in motivating the shootings. Both groups acknowledge that this is a war between the west and fundamentalist Islam. To think that your sophistic gymnastics with labels and terminology is going to sway our (as in, fundamentalists') hearts and minds... i understand as much about ISIS as you do, Virgil. and if you think that "the left" is the only source for Orwellian language, you are gravely mistaken. i was just asking a simple question, as i am not the news hound i once was: "did ISIS claim responsibility?" that is all. i was not asking as a form of entrapment. i am just curious, because I DON'T KNOW. so, for now, i will presume the answer is NO. thanks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 12:11:50 GMT -5
It has been the habit of Daesh to claim responsibility as soon as an atrocity is committed if, indeed, they are responsible. In some cases, they've even warned in advance. They're not known for waiting to beat their own chests or toot their own horns. I'll repeat my belief that they are not claiming responsibility because a woman was the mastermind. The wife pledged her allegiance to Isis under a pseudonym. I wonder if that pseudonym was a male name since Isis doesn't recruit women as soldiers, only as support personnel? that could be. or it could be that they had no "hand" in it. i don't honestly care which of those two it is. i was just asking. edit: but it should be noted that another poster claimed that ISIS had no problem using women, and that women were involved in Paris. i tried to find information on that and was unable to. so for now, i will presume that you are ALSO correct in claiming that they don't recruit women to their cause.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 12:14:45 GMT -5
... Let me be the first to tell you: ISIS feels legitimate, fundamentalists gravitating towards ISIS believe it to be legitimate, regardless of how you and western leaders struggle to frame the conflict. American conservatives, especially fundamentalists, consider ISIS complicit in these recent attacks regardless of how much we bicker over the nuances of "responsibility". Both groups know this attack was a minor victory for ISIS. Both groups will call it this in spite of the left's balking at acknowledging "victory" or ISIS' integral role in motivating the shootings. Both groups acknowledge that this is a war between the west and fundamentalist Islam. To think that your sophistic gymnastics with labels and terminology is going to sway our (as in, fundamentalists') hearts and minds... What incredible hubris. ... I agree that there is no hope to sway the hearts and minds of fundamentalists. They are closed and locked. The battle is for the vast majority of people who aren't fundamentalists. and it is a battle that we are likely to lose if we continue fighting in a way that produces large numbers of collateral victims.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 12:15:25 GMT -5
Thoughts towards immigration can be fluid .... after much consideration regarding Muslim and Hispanic migrants (particularly Mexican and Central American), my stance towards the Hispanic population is softening. After all, they haven't committed a terrorist act and my resolve against all Muslims is unfortunately also becoming more fluid. Finding myself not trusting any of them that I haven't personally met .... not liking myself for that, but hey, it is what it is quite a natural response, especially during a vacuum of good leadership.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 12:19:20 GMT -5
i asked a very specific question: did ISIS claim responsibility? it looks to me like the answer is NO. and let's be clear- it is really easy to claim responsibility, even if you don't own it. and terrorist groups seem to LOVE to do it. It has been the habit of Daesh to claim responsibility as soon as an atrocity is committed if, indeed, they are responsible. In some cases, they've even warned in advance. They're not known for waiting to beat their own chests or toot their own horns. thanks for the direct answer that didn't include a lecture on the follies of specificity.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 7, 2015 12:21:14 GMT -5
It has been the habit of Daesh to claim responsibility as soon as an atrocity is committed if, indeed, they are responsible. In some cases, they've even warned in advance. They're not known for waiting to beat their own chests or toot their own horns. thanks for the direct answer that didn't include a lecture on the follies of specificity. And they've been warning about an impending attack in the US since Paris.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 12:35:07 GMT -5
thanks for the direct answer that didn't include a lecture on the follies of specificity. And they've been warning about an impending attack in the US since Paris. i am sure they have been warning of an attack since before they crossed the border into Syria.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,596
|
Post by Ombud on Dec 7, 2015 12:40:35 GMT -5
djAdvocate, thank you. Exactly my point. We can stop a lot but in this case, we dropped the ball bc we failed to see that women are just as likely to be islamic terrorists as men. Wish my gender was more benevolent but we aren't. So now let's review all those women brought in as spouses as rigorously as we are supposedly reviewing the muslim migrants
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 13:18:19 GMT -5
djAdvocate , thank you. Exactly my point. We can stop a lot but in this case, we dropped the ball bc we failed to see that women are just as likely to be islamic terrorists as men. Wish my gender was more benevolent but we aren't. So now let's review all those women brought in as spouses as rigorously as we are supposedly reviewing the muslim migrants i am not arguing on this point, but several others on this board are. please take it up with them. i will sit back and watch as you hash it out. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/angel2.png)
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2015 13:25:07 GMT -5
... Let me be the first to tell you: ISIS feels legitimate, fundamentalists gravitating towards ISIS believe it to be legitimate, regardless of how you and western leaders struggle to frame the conflict. American conservatives, especially fundamentalists, consider ISIS complicit in these recent attacks regardless of how much we bicker over the nuances of "responsibility". Both groups know this attack was a minor victory for ISIS. Both groups will call it this in spite of the left's balking at acknowledging "victory" or ISIS' integral role in motivating the shootings. Both groups acknowledge that this is a war between the west and fundamentalist Islam. To think that your sophistic gymnastics with labels and terminology is going to sway our (as in, fundamentalists') hearts and minds... What incredible hubris. ... I agree that there is no hope to sway the hearts and minds of fundamentalists. They are closed and locked. The battle is for the vast majority of people who aren't fundamentalists. Then you're fighting on the wrong battlefield. Fundamentalism vs. relativism is an issue of degrees, like most broad categorizations. What I'm saying is that there exist two points P and Q on this spectrum with the properties that: - anywhere from 15-25% of individuals here and abroad currently fall on the right (fundamentalist) side of P
- the only individuals that might potentially subscribe to ISIS' ideology and join its cause fall on the right side of P
- the only individuals swayed by manipulation of labels and terminology fall on the left (relativist) side of Q
- Q is distinctly to the left of P
- the individuals falling to the right of Q, in addition to not being swayed by manipulation of labels and terminology, have only a finite tolerance for it
In short, not only do these word games have no effectiveness in changing the mind of anyone whose mind needs to be changed, they risk alienating the "moderates" between P and Q who tire of the unremitting lies, obfuscation, and doublespeak embraced by national leaders. This is precisely what we're observing in Europe, and to a lesser degree in North America. It seems odd in 2015, I know, but people still do have a finite capacity for leftist bull hockey.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 14:17:48 GMT -5
I agree that there is no hope to sway the hearts and minds of fundamentalists. They are closed and locked. The battle is for the vast majority of people who aren't fundamentalists. Then you're fighting on the wrong battlefield. Fundamentalism vs. relativism is an issue of degrees, like most broad categorizations. What I'm saying is that there exist two points P and Q on this spectrum with the properties that: - anywhere from 15-25% of individuals here and abroad currently fall on the right (fundamentalist) side of P
- the only individuals that might potentially subscribe to ISIS' ideology and join its cause fall on the right side of P
- the only individuals swayed by manipulation of labels and terminology fall on the left (relativist) side of Q
- Q is distinctly to the left of P
- the individuals falling to the right of Q, in addition to not being swayed by manipulation of labels and terminology, have only a finite tolerance for it
In short, not only do these word games have no effectiveness in changing the mind of anyone whose mind needs to be changed, they risk alienating the "moderates" between P and Q who tire of the unremitting lies, obfuscation, and doublespeak embraced by national leaders. This is precisely what we're observing in Europe, and to a lesser degree in North America. It seems odd in 2015, I know, but people still do have a finite capacity for leftist bull hockey.
what "doublespeak" are you finding so infuriating?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Dec 7, 2015 14:46:41 GMT -5
Then you're fighting on the wrong battlefield. Fundamentalism vs. relativism is an issue of degrees, like most broad categorizations. What I'm saying is that there exist two points P and Q on this spectrum with the properties that: - anywhere from 15-25% of individuals here and abroad currently fall on the right (fundamentalist) side of P
- the only individuals that might potentially subscribe to ISIS' ideology and join its cause fall on the right side of P
- the only individuals swayed by manipulation of labels and terminology fall on the left (relativist) side of Q
- Q is distinctly to the left of P
- the individuals falling to the right of Q, in addition to not being swayed by manipulation of labels and terminology, have only a finite tolerance for it
In short, not only do these word games have no effectiveness in changing the mind of anyone whose mind needs to be changed, they risk alienating the "moderates" between P and Q who tire of the unremitting lies, obfuscation, and doublespeak embraced by national leaders. This is precisely what we're observing in Europe, and to a lesser degree in North America. It seems odd in 2015, I know, but people still do have a finite capacity for leftist bull hockey.
what "doublespeak" are you finding so infuriating? For this particular issue, a half-dozen examples are given here. I'll also tack on this and this. ![](http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/dancing/smiley.gif) THE TRUTH
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 15:34:59 GMT -5
what "doublespeak" are you finding so infuriating? For this particular issue, a half-dozen examples are given here. I'll also tack on this and this. huh. ok. i am just trying to understand the situation, Virgil. i am not trying to obscure or forgive anything using language. here is where i am at today: ISIS has some tangential involvement with what happened in SB & the perpetrators were Islamic Radicals. the rest of the details are actually not that important to me. moreover, suspected terrorists in the US are denied basic rights and due process under the PATRIOT Act, so i have no reason to presume that any ostensibly legal provisions in the constitution would apply, until they are tested in court. do you think we have any basic disagreement here? if not, try not to get annoyed. i am just looking for answers for MY OWN questions. PS- your first post has nothing to do with me. i didn't comment on it before now.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,643
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 7, 2015 15:42:43 GMT -5
I read these stories that you create and hold to be accurate but I simply don't accept that the world is what you consider it to be. You do work to make it "real" with percentages that come from who knows where that make it seem more authoritarian but it is total fabrication. There is a large group of individuals who are Muslim by accident of birth who have no real knowledge of what being Muslim means, don't really care to work hard to study to figure it out, and will tend to believe what they are told (as is true of most Christians, etc). If everyone is yelling all Muslims are terrorists or jihadists (take your pick), then what can we expect of them. Is or is not Islam a religion of peace? I don't really give a crap because I think that religions are whatever we humans make them. I think it is to the advantage of those of us who would prefer to just live to encourage as many Muslims as possible that it is a religion of peace rather than declaring all Muslims need to be killing us.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 7, 2015 18:40:35 GMT -5
For this particular issue, a half-dozen examples are given here. I'll also tack on this and this. huh. ok. i am just trying to understand the situation, Virgil. i am not trying to obscure or forgive anything using language. here is where i am at today: ISIS has some tangential involvement with what happened in SB & the perpetrators were Islamic Radicals. the rest of the details are actually not that important to me. moreover, suspected terrorists in the US are denied basic rights and due process under the PATRIOT Act, so i have no reason to presume that any ostensibly legal provisions in the constitution would apply, until they are tested in court. do you think we have any basic disagreement here? if not, try not to get annoyed. i am just looking for answers for MY OWN questions. PS- your first post has nothing to do with me. i didn't comment on it before now. dj, I would like to thank you for looking at the issues of the attack, and formulating your thoughts on the issue. Very well reasoned thoughts. Good job. As far as an American citizen being a home grown radical Islamic terrorist, if he was caught alive, he would still be given all his inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution. If he were charged with treason, does he still retain all rights since we technically are not at war with a government?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,434
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 7, 2015 18:48:52 GMT -5
huh. ok. i am just trying to understand the situation, Virgil. i am not trying to obscure or forgive anything using language. here is where i am at today: ISIS has some tangential involvement with what happened in SB & the perpetrators were Islamic Radicals. the rest of the details are actually not that important to me. moreover, suspected terrorists in the US are denied basic rights and due process under the PATRIOT Act, so i have no reason to presume that any ostensibly legal provisions in the constitution would apply, until they are tested in court. do you think we have any basic disagreement here? if not, try not to get annoyed. i am just looking for answers for MY OWN questions. PS- your first post has nothing to do with me. i didn't comment on it before now. dj, I would like to thank you for looking at the issues of the attack, and formulating your thoughts on the issue. Very well reasoned thoughts. Good job. rather than praising me, why not just be more patient with me next time?- because you know it is coming.As far as an American citizen being a home grown radical Islamic terrorist, if he was caught alive, he would still be given all his inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution. um. no. this is not a matter of disagreement, but a matter of fact. the facts are not with you on this one:
www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14120-obama-signs-2013-ndaa-may-still-arrest-detain-citizens-without-charge
note: i used this link rather than huffpo, because, well.....you know why.
If he were charged with treason, does he still retain all rights since we technically are not at war with a government? not aware of anyone being charged with treason lately, but many Americans have been held in indefinite detention since 911. it is why i am pretty well worried about neofascists running for office, VB. we are already part of the way to the Enabling Act.
|
|