ISIS!

  On 5/25/2015 at 12:59 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/24/2015 at 11:34 PM, LimpyLoo said:

and furthermore that as good humanists and rationalists

we have a moral duty to do so

 

sounds like bush jr./obama

 

oh god c'mon now

if you're gonna call me bush/obama

at least quote the two lines before that one

so i take it you're a moral relativist and post-modernist?

where hey, we all have our own truths

and morality is whatever we make of it

to borrow a page from your book

sounds like Ted Bundy/Pol Pot

maybe you think the allies shouldn't have intervened in WW2?

because hey, who are we to say what's right?

we all have our own truth and morality, innit

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:05 AM, LimpyLoo said:

so i take it you're a moral relativist and post-modernist?

where hey, we all have our own truths

and morality is whatever we make of it

to borrow a page from your book

sounds like Ted Bundy/Pol Pot

i'm not. i just think the way you depict things is naive and incorrect.

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:08 AM, LimpyLoo said:

maybe you think the allies shouldn't have intervened in WW2?

 

because hey, who are we to say what's right?

we all have our own truth and morality, innit

once again you're dodging the issue imo.

on this particular topic, i think you should read this for starters: http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:18 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:05 AM, LimpyLoo said:

so i take it you're a moral relativist and post-modernist?

where hey, we all have our own truths

and morality is whatever we make of it

to borrow a page from your book

sounds like Ted Bundy/Pol Pot

 

i'm not. i just think the way you depict things is naive and incorrect.

 

this is one of those cases where i'm frankly embarrassed to be a liberal

when i advocate against moral relativism

when i advocate that liberals simply acknowledge that pre-scientific beliefs cause problems (or even could in theory!)

i am painted as this pro-military neo-con or something

it's fucking insane

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:22 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:08 AM, LimpyLoo said:

maybe you think the allies shouldn't have intervened in WW2?

 

because hey, who are we to say what's right?

we all have our own truth and morality, innit

 

once again you're dodging the issue imo.

 

on this particular topic, i think you should read this for starters: http://www.voltairenet.org/article187508.html

 

yes i understand that war isn't simply good vs. evil

and that the american gov't isn't this virtuous thing

that sheds literally no light

on whether Hitler should've been stopped

you seem to think that because i am speaking plainly and conceptually

that i'm a kindergartener that doesn't know any history

or that i think America is this force of unambiguous good or something

you are assuming things about me that are not true

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

this is one of those cases where i'm frankly embarrassed to be a liberal

 

when i advocate against moral relativism

when i advocate that liberals simply acknowledge that pre-scientific beliefs cause problems (or even could in theory!)

i am painted as this pro-military neo-con or something

it's fucking insane

i'm not saying you're a pro-military neo-con, just pointing that reading you is like reading their crap, same rhetorics. sorry if that sounds rude btw, no offense meant.

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:32 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

this is one of those cases where i'm frankly embarrassed to be a liberal

 

when i advocate against moral relativism

when i advocate that liberals simply acknowledge that pre-scientific beliefs cause problems (or even could in theory!)

i am painted as this pro-military neo-con or something

it's fucking insane

 

i'm not saying you're a pro-military neo-con, just pointing that reading you is like reading their crap, same rhetorics. sorry if that sounds rude btw, no offense meant.

 

i think that's more a matter of your reading than my writing

but anyway, i'm very, very curious as to how you'd answer this question:

Should Hitler have been stopped? If so, why? And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

(I have a feeling that you won't be able to answer this question in a way that's consistent with what you've been saying thus far)

also, my mother believes she has psychic healing powers and that she can talk to dead people...do i have any grounds for saying that her beliefs are factually wrong, or are her beliefs simply different from mine?

i get the feeling that Alco, JE, and BT would be hesitant to agree with the former...thus proving my point about multi-culturalism values (well-meaning as they are) trumping rationalism and humanism

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:32 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

this is one of those cases where i'm frankly embarrassed to be a liberal

 

when i advocate against moral relativism

when i advocate that liberals simply acknowledge that pre-scientific beliefs cause problems (or even could in theory!)

i am painted as this pro-military neo-con or something

it's fucking insane

 

i'm not saying you're a pro-military neo-con, just pointing that reading you is like reading their crap, same rhetorics. sorry if that sounds rude btw, no offense meant.

 

 

i think that's more a matter of your reading than my writing

 

 

but anyway, i'm very, very curious as to how you'd answer this question:

 

Should Hitler have been stopped? If so, why? And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

 

(I have a feeling that you won't be able to answer this question in a way that's consistent with what you've been saying thus far)

 

you're assuming these are relevant questions when i think you're missing the point completely. the allies didn't fight for moral reasons but economic leadership.

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:59 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:32 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:23 AM, LimpyLoo said:

this is one of those cases where i'm frankly embarrassed to be a liberal

 

when i advocate against moral relativism

when i advocate that liberals simply acknowledge that pre-scientific beliefs cause problems (or even could in theory!)

i am painted as this pro-military neo-con or something

it's fucking insane

 

i'm not saying you're a pro-military neo-con, just pointing that reading you is like reading their crap, same rhetorics. sorry if that sounds rude btw, no offense meant.

 

 

i think that's more a matter of your reading than my writing

 

 

but anyway, i'm very, very curious as to how you'd answer this question:

 

Should Hitler have been stopped? If so, why? And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

 

(I have a feeling that you won't be able to answer this question in a way that's consistent with what you've been saying thus far)

 

 

you're assuming these are relevant questions when i think you're missing the point completely. the allies didn't fight for moral reasons but economic leadership.

 

SHOULD anyone had intervened?

you are missing my point

i'm not talking about the real-world moral confounds of WW2

that is a separate conversation

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

1.Should Hitler have been stopped? 2.If so, why? 3.And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

 

 

 

1.Yes.

2. Because perpetual war is not a viable long term way to organize society, it is an inefficient use of resources.

3 No.

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:06 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

1.Should Hitler have been stopped? 2.If so, why? 3.And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

 

 

 

 

1.Yes.

2. Because perpetual war is not a viable long term way to organize society, it is an inefficient use of resources.

3 No.

 

i'm not advocating perpetual war

i'm just wondering theoretically if there is ever cause for criticizing/condemning/stopping others on humanitarian (or rationalist) grounds? because i'm getting this relativist vibe in here...

like with the draw Muhammad thing

i would've thought that everyone would be on the same page--

that you should be able to draw anything you want

and if you're offended by a drawing of Muhammad because of your pre-scientific beliefs and values

then, well, tough titties--

but I got this torrent of pushback

and then i sorta realized that--

maybe for some folks here--

humanism and rationalism don't actually trump all

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:17 AM, LimpyLoo said:

like with the draw Muhammad thing

i would've thought that everyone would be on the same page--

that you should be able to draw anything you want

and if you're offended by a drawing of Muhammad because of your pre-scientific beliefs and values

then, well, tough titties--

once again you can't help but think in a binary fashion. broaden your perspective dude

simple-ass nigga.

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:34 AM, Brian Tregaskin said:

 

 

once again you can't help but think in a binary fashion. broaden your perspective dude

 

wow

alright then QED innit

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:17 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:06 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

1.Should Hitler have been stopped? 2.If so, why? 3.And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

 

 

 

 

1.Yes.

2. Because perpetual war is not a viable long term way to organize society, it is an inefficient use of resources.

3 No.

 

 

i'm not advocating perpetual war

 

i'm just wondering theoretically if there is ever cause for criticizing/condemning/stopping others on humanitarian (or rationalist) grounds? because i'm getting this relativist vibe in here...

 

like with the draw Muhammad thing

i would've thought that everyone would be on the same page--

that you should be able to draw anything you want

and if you're offended by a drawing of Muhammad because of your pre-scientific beliefs and values

then, well, tough titties--

but I got this torrent of pushback

 

and then i sorta realized that--

maybe for some folks here--

humanism and rationalism don't actually trump all

 

I didn't say you were advocating for perpetual war.

What is your humanist-rational explanation for stopping ISIS?

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:52 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:17 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 2:06 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 1:42 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

1.Should Hitler have been stopped? 2.If so, why? 3.And if so, is the basis for stopping him generalizable to other situations?

 

 

 

 

1.Yes.

2. Because perpetual war is not a viable long term way to organize society, it is an inefficient use of resources.

3 No.

 

 

i'm not advocating perpetual war

 

i'm just wondering theoretically if there is ever cause for criticizing/condemning/stopping others on humanitarian (or rationalist) grounds? because i'm getting this relativist vibe in here...

 

like with the draw Muhammad thing

i would've thought that everyone would be on the same page--

that you should be able to draw anything you want

and if you're offended by a drawing of Muhammad because of your pre-scientific beliefs and values

then, well, tough titties--

but I got this torrent of pushback

 

and then i sorta realized that--

maybe for some folks here--

humanism and rationalism don't actually trump all

 

 

I didn't say you were advocating for perpetual war.

 

What is your humanist-rational explanation for stopping ISIS?

 

who knows what we (or anyone, generally) should actually do--

that's a strategic and political question that's far above my pay grade--

but nonetheless something should indeed be done, no?

that's really all I'm saying here:

that some things are morally bad

(and some beliefs are factually wrong)

and it's not arrogant to say so

the big problem

of course

is that there isn't really any way to stop ISIS without killing innocent people

so that presents a trolley-like problem:

if we think ISIS will kill X people if allowed to stand

then should we (or anyone) attack them, so long as amount of casualties is <X

or is there any amount of casualties that would be acceptable?

The two big problems are that:

1. You are assuming that ISIS is taking over and controlling territory for religious reasons, instead of using religion as a tool to take control of resources and amass wealth and power.

2. You are insinuating that ISIS is representative of all practicing Muslims.

As an added bonus you are advocating that something should be done. This of course is precisely useless advice. Come up with a policy, explain why you think it is necessary to implement said policy, and explain the pros and cons of the policy along with expected results.

  On 5/25/2015 at 4:03 AM, chenGOD said:

The two big problems are that:

1. You are assuming that ISIS is taking over and controlling territory for religious reasons, instead of using religion as a tool to take control of resources and amass wealth and power.

2. You are insinuating that ISIS is representative of all practicing Muslims.

 

As an added bonus you are advocating that something should be done. This of course is precisely useless advice. Come up with a policy, explain why you think it is necessary to implement said policy, and explain the pros and cons of the policy along with expected results.

1) there is zero evidence to suggest they don't actually believe what they say they do

they act exactly like people who take the Koran literally

this is a common belief that dumbfounds me

where is your evidence that they are cynically using religion?

2) no i'm not...why do you think that?

dude, i don't know what to do

any suggestions i made would be constrained by my limited knowledge of international law, political constraints, military logistics, etc

i mean, do you think we should do nothing?

clearly if there would be zero civilian casualties we (or somebody else) should at least capture them if not kill them

but like i said i don't have any specific prescriptions

At1.) why yes there is evidence. The way the muslim community - if there is one - regard the reading of the koran by those in isis for instance (if you might actually talk about such a thing as the majority in isis probably dont have any reading of the koran whatsoever). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/muslim-scholars-islamic-state_n_5878038.html

So you might actually come to a conclusion that isis acts distinctly different from those who take the koran literally.

  On 5/25/2015 at 6:05 AM, goDel said:

At1.) why yes there is evidence. The way the muslim community - if there is one - regard the reading of the koran by those in isis for instance (if you might actually talk about such a thing as the majority in isis probably dont have any reading of the koran whatsoever). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/muslim-scholars-islamic-state_n_5878038.html

So you might actually come to a conclusion that isis acts distinctly different from those who take the koran literally.

It shouldn't be any surprise that most Muslims think that ISIS is misreading the Koran. That has zero to do with the sincerity with which ISIS believe in the divinity of the Koran.

Most Christians think that The Westboro Baptist Church is misreading the Bible, but that tells us nothing about how sincerely they believe what they believe. Do people think that WBC secrectly don't believe what they say they believe simply because they're doing bad things, or because other Christians think they're misreading the Bible?

The one has zero to do with the other. I feel like people are bending over backwards to defend religious beliefs, almost to a 'no true scotsman' extant ("since they're doing bad things they must not be motivated by religious belief").

What? Misreading is an understatement. IF isis would believe in the divinity of the koran, than how could they 'misread'/cherry pick it so blatently? The word of allah was supposed to be perfect, right? So they just happen to completely ignore some fundamental parts of the koran because of their beliefs? The fact they are openly cherry picking suggests they use the koran for self serving purposes. And those tend to ignore any religious logic.

Imo, your focus on their 'beliefs' ignores the (political) interests of isis. They clearly operate out of political interests as they're trying to establish a state.

I feel like you are bending over backwards to attack religious beliefs even when it's obvious those are only part of a far bigger story.

  On 5/25/2015 at 6:45 AM, goDel said:

What? Misreading is an understatement. IF isis would believe in the divinity of the koran, than how could they 'misread'/cherry pick it so blatently? The word of allah was supposed to be perfect, right? So they just happen to completely ignore some fundamental parts of the koran because of their beliefs? The fact they are openly cherry picking suggests they use the koran for self serving purposes. And those tend to ignore any religious logic.

Imo, your focus on their 'beliefs' ignores the (political) interests of isis. They clearly operate out of political interests as they're trying to establish a state.

I feel like you are bending over backwards to attack religious beliefs even when it's obvious those are only part of a far bigger story.

Cherry-picking? The Koran isn't this nice, peaceful document with one or two ugly bits. It's more the other way around.

Muhammad wasn't some socialist beatnik sorta dude. He was a brutal warlord who advocated stoning adulterers, for instance. He went around killing people if they didn't convert to Islam. Sharia Law is based directly on his teachings.

Again, I feel like I'm losing my mind here. In what way are ISIS not acting like people who think the Koran is the perfect word of God, and is meant to be read literally? Seriously, this feels like a Twilight Zone episode or something...