Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am Funny spelling error - I'll blame the GA for that.

Yep. It happens.

...the issue is much more fundamental to human nature and humanity's journey...
Consider this report about the neo-Nazi who then claimed to be an Islamic terrorist https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... pside-down

Ha. Oh wow.

This glosses over a lot of media hogwash. If there's one conservative nut job that goes crazy and harms people, then he's held up as an exemplar of conservatism, of whiteness or worse, of Christianity. Why? What sense does that ever make?

However, let a hundred Muslims conspire together and kill thousands, and let it happen a hundred times a year, and nobody will blame Islam for it. Every one of them is regarded as an isolated nut job or an individual incident with no causal links to Islam, ever. They can be yelling "Allahu Akbar," and throwing suicide notes detailing their religious motives to all sides as they dance through an auditorium spraying machine-gun fire, and somehow none of them -- not one, not ever -- is regarded as a genuine representative of Islam.

The double-standard there is nauseating. But that's the media for you. Leftist ideologues, from beginning to end. Fairness is just not in them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:01 pm But that's the media for you. Leftist ideologues, from beginning to end. Fairness is just not in them.

The news media has an obligation to report events that connect the now to the narrative of history. The BBC may actually be turning the corner on this point as judged by their website cover stories lately, CNN however is committing omission again and again, not reporting events that presumably are historically significant. Anyone who is seriously interested in understanding an event will consult a large number of sources of different types.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:42 pm The news media has an obligation to report events that connect the now to the narrative of history.

The problem with that is that their "narrative of history" is absurd and ideologically blinded. It goes something like this:

"At first, humankind was primitive. People were conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists and other sorts of bigots...chief among them were Jews and Christians. But after the Enlightenment, people woke up and became technologically advanced. They saw that there was no God and no ultimate morality. At that point, it became inevitable that society would progressively secularize, turn socialist, then globalist, then all will be peace and love.

The Islamists are an accident, a temporary setback. And with enough Western toleration and encouragement, will lay down their arms and join us in the great consumerist rush to fill our lives with meaningful things, like Nikes and Coca Cola. All that's keeping them from doing that is the prejudice of conservatives, traditionalists, nationalists and other sorts of bigots...chief among them Christians, Brexiters and Republicans. And we, in the media, have the job of keeping before the eyes of the foolish and unruly masses the pole star of our Leftist narrative of history, so they don't lose focus and start to notice facts."

That's the media's view. And that's why, as you say,

...CNN however is committing omission again and again, not reporting events that presumably are historically significant.

That's because it doesn't fit the "history" they intend to make come true. And they actually imagine they're doing us all a favour by hiding all the facts that would "distract" us from the narrative they believe...or think we all ought to believe, since only if enough fools believe it can it "come true."

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 2:07 pm
What differentiated the violence committed by Muslims from that committed by the West in the Middle-East is that Western violence is in the service of defeating Islamism and vanguarding Western civilization, Islamists by contrast pursue Islamic society. Western civilization is something considerably more valuable, it's worth killing and dying for; Islamic society by contrast is an abomination; ugly, retarded, and ignorant at best.

If it was really a clash between Western civilisation and Islam, surely US troops would be killing and dying in a war against the most Islamic society, also the one most closely linked to terrorism, i.e. Saudi Arabia. Yet strangely...

While your show of virtue is so admirable, the world is a gang-land turf war, a clash of civilizations fought over money and bitches, Western people are perusing their interests, if necessary, at the expense of others. That's the realpolitik of it.

Although that certainly explains why we support Saudi Arabia it is a completely contradictory argument to the one in the first quote.

You can either say it is all just a gang-land turf war, or you can claim it is a moral crusade, but it is a bit odd to try to combine the two.

(Islamic suicide attacks go back to the tradition of assassins from the time of the early caliphs.)

But again, there were plenty of non-Islamic societies that considered suicide attacks were praiseworthy too. Even Christians, who are against suicide as an act of despair, declare 'There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends' and they hand out posthumous medals to soldiers for doing so.

I do not understand the level of hysteria this subject generates. Any threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial, compared to the ordinary hazards of life. But perhaps the two are linked? Perhaps the reason people so enjoy taking a brave verbal stand against Islamism is because they know they can do so from a position of complete safety?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 2:52 pm

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 11:40 am What would be the point of remembering? That both George Wallace and Barack Obama both ran as Democrats would give you no insight into the politics of either of them.

Oh, I disagree. I think you learn a very great deal by staying alert to the history there.

But see if you agree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_a7dQXilCo

What do we learn? That Obama must have had a secret agenda to bring back slavery? Or that Wallace must have been a secret liberal?

By looking at the history, I could learn that the USA as a whole was founded by slave owners who saw nothing wrong with the institution of slavery. Does that knowledge help me understand current US policies?

I think this is the bias of 'privilege'. We come across some particular fact, a fact that we think not many people know, and because of that we give it special weight - particularly if it fits in with our existing world view. So yes, the Democratic Party was once a peculiar coalition of socially conservative ex-Confederate states with northern liberals. This is interesting as a fact, but not particularly significant, certainly no more than many other more recent facts.

In the UK, the governing party has its roots in Episcopalian-ism and links to the deposed (1688) Stuart dynasty. But I can assure you these are really not issues in the current election and would be absolutely no help in understanding current party policies.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:59 pmYou can either say it is all just a gang-land turf war, or you can claim it is a moral crusade, but it is a bit odd to try to combine the two.

The morality in it is the destruction of the enemies of Western civilization. Defending you family and your people. Defending the apotheosis of civilization from heathens. As Jesus, the supreme warrior said, "I did not come to bring peace, I've brought the sword" (Matthew 10:34), or less well known: "if you own anything, sell it and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36). Deus vult!

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:59 pmIf it was really a clash between Western civilization and Islam, surely US troops would be killing and dying in a war against the most Islamic society, also the one most closely linked to terrorism, i.e. Saudi Arabia. Yet strangely...

Mecca and Medina are controlled by a Western funded and supported puppet government, what greater height of domination could be asked for short of draping the Kaʿbah in the stars and stripes?

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:59 pmAny threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial

You are perhaps not aware that whole countries which had been secular, are slipping under Islamic dictatorship? For example Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, the South of the Philippines, Pakistan, Turkey, the interior of Nigeria, the coastal region of Kenya, the East of Ethiopia (Eritrea); not to mention of course Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt and Libya...

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:59 pmBut again, there were plenty of non-Islamic societies that considered suicide attacks were praiseworthy too.

Please cite historical examples.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 4:21 pm What do we learn?

To recognize a lie in the narrative that says Democrats are the part of minorities, and Republicans are a racist party.

By looking at the history, I could learn that the USA as a whole was founded by slave owners who saw nothing wrong with the institution of slavery. Does that knowledge help me understand current US policies?

Hugely. For one thing, it will tell you why the US has a persistent North-South difference, and that everywhere there are unresolved racial tensions to be faced. It also helps you understand why playing the "R" card around immigration policies is such a hot and divisive way to go, or why most inner cities are persistently desperate, poor and crime-ridden.

But it will also tell you, "Beware of smiling Democrats bearing gifts."

In the UK, the governing party has its roots in Episcopalian-ism and links to the deposed (1688) Stuart dynasty. But I can assure you these are really not issues in the current election and would be absolutely no help in understanding current party policies.

England is an old country. The wounds in the US are much, much fresher. They count for a lot more about the present. You have to remember that they were still imposing Segregation in the South in the 1960s. That's a great deal closer than the 1600s.

But even so, I think your view is unrealistic, even in respect to the Sceptered Isle. In many ways, England still lives in the detritus of High Anglicanism: look at the monarchy or the private schools. And Victorianism, it's so basic to the English way of thinking they can't even imagine it remains at all. But an outsider can see it in an instant -- if he knows what he's looking at.

Traditionalism, history, the English story, the National Trust...these things are so ubiquitous that many people in the UK don't even notice them anymore...it's just "the way things are done."

History always counts in the telling of how things are today. When things are the same, they're the same for historical reasons; and when they differ, they differ in rejection of a particular set of circumstances, movements and assumptions -- of a specific history.

That's how causality in sociological analysis works. We can ignore it if we wish: but it will be at the cost of failing to understand how we got to where we are now, and will tend to reify the present as inevitable, in our imagination.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 3:59 pm Even Christians, who are against suicide as an act of despair, declare 'There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends'...

Are you seriously suggesting you can't tell the difference between a suicide bomber and someone who, say, dives into a frozen river to save a drowning child?

Oh, come now!

I do not understand the level of hysteria this subject generates. Any threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial...

There isn't "a tiny number of real Islamists." There are millions of them. But don't worry...they're coming soon to a neighbourhood near you, and they'll clear up your thinking on that very, very quickly.

My brother lives in a neighbourhood where Islamization is currently running amok. His daughter had to move away, because it wasn't safe for her to go walking. And all this in one of the world's most tolerant, "progressive," multicultural cities.

Seleucus wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 4:36 pm The morality in it is the destruction of the enemies of Western civilization. Defending you family and your people. Defending the apotheosis of civilization from heathens. As Jesus, the supreme warrior said, "I did not come to bring peace, I've brought the sword" (Matthew 10:34), or less well known: "if you own anything, sell it and buy a sword" (Luke 22:36). Deus vult!

That rather begs the question of what western civilisation is. Certainly there is an element who interprets it, and Christianity, in the way you describe, but I don't think it can be said to be a typical view. Other Christians on this thread argue that their religion is characterised by its peacefulness (in contrast to Islam). You can argue either, but not both!

Mecca and Medina are controlled by a Western funded and supported puppet government, what greater height of domination could be asked for short of draping the Kaʿbah in the stars and stripes?

Stopping them promoting radical Islam? Persuading them to stop backing the groups who are responsible for terrorism?

You describe it as 'domination' by it could easily be mistaken for 'showering in money'.

Me: Any threat from the tiny numbers of real Islamists is utterly trivial
You are perhaps not aware that whole countries which had been secular, are slipping under Islamic dictatorship? For example Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Brunei, the South of the Philippines, Pakistan, Turkey, the interior of Nigeria, the coastal region of Kenya, the East of Ethiopia (Eritrea); not to mention of course Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt and Libya...

I am aware of those countries; they certainly were never entirely secular and neither are they Islamic dictatorships. Several of them are going in the opposite direction. Besides, where Islam is having a revival it is because of Saudi promotion, and you say the USA runs Saudi Arabia, so...?

And even if they did all become 'Islamic dictatorships' they are more likely to fight each other.

Me: But again, there were plenty of non-Islamic societies that considered suicide attacks were praiseworthy too.
Please cite historical examples.

Of the opinion that they are praiseworthy? Here is some poetry to that effect:

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the gate:
“To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers
And the temples of his gods...

and

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred

and most famously:

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 5:41 pm
Are you seriously suggesting you can't tell the difference between a suicide bomber and someone who, say, dives into a frozen river to save a drowning child?

Oh, come now!

We both know that you do not think that I was.

Suicide bombing has to wait for the invention of modern explosives (where its early use was by anarchists). The key point here is that it involves sacrificing your own life in order to achieve a moral/political/military objective. I'm saying this has long been considered praiseworthy.

There isn't "a tiny number of real Islamists." There are millions of them. But don't worry...they're coming soon to a neighbourhood near you, and they'll clear up your thinking on that very, very quickly.

My brother lives in a neighbourhood where Islamization is currently running amok. His daughter had to move away, because it wasn't safe for her to go walking. And all this in one of the world's most tolerant, "progressive," multicultural cities.

Is this going to be another example where you won't say where this neighbourhood is? In London we fall over ourselves laughing each time we are told by some US politician about our supposed 'no-go' areas.

I can only say I have lived in neighborhoods where 99% of the population were Muslims and met with nothing but kindness. I have also lived in areas where strong men were careful where they walked, but it wasn't because they were scared of Muslims. As I wrote before, the stats show that the most dangerous areas for people to take a walk are in Latin America, the USA and South Africa. Again, not because of Muslims.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 6:03 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 5:41 pm
Are you seriously suggesting you can't tell the difference between a suicide bomber and someone who, say, dives into a frozen river to save a drowning child?

Oh, come now!

We both know that you do not think that I was.

I THOUGHT I did. Now I'm not so sure. Because you say below...

The key point here is that it involves sacrificing your own life in order to achieve a moral/political/military objective. I'm saying this has long been considered praiseworthy.

But that's the point. Jumping into a frozen river to save a child IS praiseworthy. So is the action of the solidier in WW 1 (this is actual, by the way) who threw himself onto a Bangalore torpedo to save his troop from being killed by it. That's real heroism.

But you are saying that an Islamist who singles out a bunch of Manchester schoolgirls and blows himself up amid them is of the same stuff as the former????

Again I say, "Oh, come on now!"

In London we fall over ourselves laughing each time we are told by some US politician about our supposed 'no-go' areas.

Well, try this little experiment.

Go into Times Square, and yell words like, "Down with America," or "I defy God." See what doesn't happen to you.

Then go to Tower Hamlets, find a nice corner at noon, and yell, "Mohammed was a liar." Then see how your day goes.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 1:27 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 12:39 pm
Let me get this right - you consider the US motives as Christian directed right? Just because some of the US politicians and military are 'Christian' doesnt mean they are claiming it is Christian inspired or motivated. They would have a hard time finding direction from Christ on such matters - not so hard for the Muslims (via Koran) who DO claim they are divinely inspired to do such acts.

The US politicians and military do not claim what they are doing is contrary to Christian values, so presumably they think killing it is compatible with those values.

Why presume anything? Christianity has NOTHING to do with their actions. They are NOT claiming otherwise - unlike Muslims.

Londoner wrote:The same is (mostly) true of Muslims. The explanations they gave for 9/11 were entirely conventional (support for Israel, the sanctions on Iraq, etc.) And I am old enough to remember when the similar issues were cited by organisations like Fatah as motivating their attacks, but in those days the ideology of the terrorists was secular socialism.

There is NO valid argument for killing over 3000 civilians - even at time of war i find the argument lame. As is Is.lame.

Londoner wrote:They will say they are acting in solidarity with other Muslims, but US politicians also consider it reasonable to intervene outside the USA in support of those they consider share US values, and secular revolutionaries claimed solidarity with each other too

Yes the USA are wankers. So that gives valid reasoning to PURPOSELY kill children in the west does it?

Londoner wrote:Yes, certainly there are a few pure religious maniacs, but that is true of Christians too. They are not so evident in the USA because the USA has effective law enforcement (although there are occasional outbreaks, like Waco), but where central government is weak, e.g. in some African states, you get movements like the LRA which seem very similar to IS.

Again - WHERE are Christians and their ideology being used to purposely direct killing of children?

Londoner wrote:My point is that it is a mistake to think there is something special about the current (historically low levels) of violence that must be explained by Islam.

Islam is a disgusting ideology. Anyone that wants some divine inspiration but choses a paedophile warlord over that of Christ are disgusting and plain stupid.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 6:16 pm
Me: The key point here is that it involves sacrificing your own life in order to achieve a moral/political/military objective. I'm saying this has long been considered praiseworthy.

But that's the point. Jumping into a frozen river to save a child IS praiseworthy. So is the action of the solidier in WW 1 (this is actual, by the way) who threw himself onto a Bangalore torpedo to save his troop from being killed by it. That's real heroism.

I do not think the first would meet the criteria, because you presumably hope and expect you won't die, but rather you would survive and rescue the child. There would be little point in jumping into the river if you just had the expectation you would drown alongside the child.

The second case is more apposite, but remember we are not discussing whether the action is 'heroic' but whether there is anything distinctive about suicide bombing. This example is questionable because the motivation is described as saving his troop, rather than winning a battle. I would think better examples would be making suicidal attacks - and there are plenty of examples of people from all sorts of cultures doing that.

But you are saying that an Islamist who singles out a bunch of Manchester schoolgirls and blows himself up amid them is of the same stuff as the former????

Again I say, "Oh, come on now!"

And again I say you are avoiding the issue. It seems the bomber was somewhat weak minded (the IRA would also use such people). It is possible he did not detonate the bomb himself. But we are not discussing his moral fibre or whether it is good to kill civilians, we are discussing whether there is a real distinction between suicide bombing and other acts that involve the predictable death of the perpetrator

Well, try this little experiment.

Go into Times Square, and yell words like, "Down with America," or "I defy God." See what doesn't happen to you.

Then go to Tower Hamlets, find a nice corner at noon, and yell, "Mohammed was a liar." Then see how your day goes.

I can tell you exactly what would happen; nothing, except people would look at you as if you were mad. Or rather, this being London, they would try not to stare, since they would probably assume you had some form of Tourette's.

I agree you would probably be OK shouting things in Times Square, but I would be nervous simply walking quietly through other neighbourhoods of other US cities. And my feelings would be rational - just look at the statistics for violent crime.

Honestly, rather than my trying to convince you, you ought to just take a trip sometime and see these places for yourself - and meet some real life Muslims in person, rather getting your ideas filtered through the sensationalist lens of the internet.

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 7:51 pm And again I say you are avoiding the issue.

I would think I was not. I would rather say I don't know what issue you're trying to make clear...

It seems the bomber was somewhat weak minded

Once, that excuse is plausible. Twice, it's an interesting coincidence. Three times, it needs a proper explaining...where are all these "weak minded" individuals coming from, and why are they committing terrorist acts. But when thousands, or millions of people subscribe to the same homicidal methodologies, then "weak minded" simply becomes a weak-minded explanation.

At some point, we need to look to the ideology. Many of these people were clearly NOT "weak minded," one-off lunatics, or brainwashed. They knew very much what they were doing, and why. That the West does not understand the "why" does not suggest there wasn't one, or that these people were just "weak minded."

For example, the 9-11 bombers were educated, rational men, capable of training to fly planes, of calculating their way through security, and of meticulously planning and executing the murder of innocent civilians....and that's just one of the many, many such cases. Do I need to mention Westminster, or Paris, or Fresno, or Tampa, or Brussels...never mind Iraq, Syria, Jakarta...

Islam is actually a bad religion. And you can tell, because the people who believe in it most passionately are all very evil. They kill little girls in Manchester, for example.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2017 12:39 pmLet me get this right - you consider the US motives as Christian directed right? Just because some of the US politicians and military are 'Christian' doesnt mean they are claiming it is Christian inspired or motivated.

But it's true:

George W Bush wrote:'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

"And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."