Show Discussions [Tv, Tv Tv, Tv, Sports, Sports, Sports, Call of duty, Dog Edition]

Moral of the story carly fiorina has some major blinders to believe theres no equivalence

Jet wrote:
Because I dont agree that the end result makes us any better

And that's like your opinion man... Just like the contrary is someone else's opinion.

Jet wrote:

Though I suspect that if we were to measure by body count wed find that weve killed a lot more in the ME alone than extremists have of us

After 9/11? Yes. The current predicament is a reaction (Not the best one) to those attacks. But since you like "what ifs"... Could we still say the same thing if there had not been intervention? I don't believe they had one single attack planned for the US...

Jet wrote:

Partly, not totally.

If you consider an additional grain of sand in the beach as too much...
 

Jet wrote:

Except it is hypocritical to say its limitations on both sides is the same.
 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently

That's the point I'm making... They are not the same...

"the comedian has played a complex cat-and-mouse game with the French state for years, earning himself a raft of trials and half a dozen convictions for inciting racial hatred while, at the same time, building a considerable following, particularly among disaffected young people of North African and African origin."

Jet wrote:
It doesnt matter why, the fact is that it does....

Well that's thinking in absolutes... You can't compare mocking, inciting violence or endangering living, breathing people... to mocking an idea, be it political, religious or social...

Jet wrote:
Except we ARE responsible for propelling the radical elements to fight communism. The radicalism is the common element.

The fight of communism spread to other regions of the world too, yet we see different results... It's nature's randomized control trial by excellence. Saying the US is responsible while ignoring the fact that Islam is by nature, a warrior's religion is trying to blot the sun out with your thumb...



Not condoning the actions of the west, but putting absolutely no blame on the religion is ridiculous... Like Aslan and Greenwald (and sadly, billions of others) like to think...

Jet wrote:
Thats not what MSM does. It gives 24/7 air time to attacks and focuses on making people scared.

Stop watching Fox News so much... CNN for example had Iman's and Muslim scholars on the air for hours. Local news outlets here had the same strategy... there is no actual discussion on the main stream...

Jet wrote:
Because I dont agree that the end result makes us any better

jec wrote:
And that's like your opinion man... Just like the contrary is someone else's opinion.

The problem is that idea is shared by so many and that has real consequences. We are better because we dont consider our actions terrorism

Jet wrote:

Though I suspect that if we were to measure by body count wed find that weve killed a lot more in the ME alone than extremists have of us

jec wrote:
After 9/11? Yes. The current predicament is a reaction (Not the best one) to those attacks. But since you like "what ifs"... Could we still say the same thing if there had not been intervention? I don't believe they had one single attack planned for the US...

Indirectly maybe. Weve been involved there for years even without sending ground troops. If you consider the radicals who are so strong now were empowered in part because of our own actions. Even then our actions arent limited to the ME.

Jet wrote:

Partly, not totally.

jec wrote:If you consider one grain in the beach too much...

He got what he wanted, years after the fact we are still there.

Jet wrote:

Except it is hypocritical to say its limitations on both sides isnt the same.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/french-law-treats-dieudonne-charlie-hebdo-differently

jec wrote:
That's the point I'm making... They are not the same...

"the comedian has played a complex cat-and-mouse game with the French state for years, earning himself a raft of trials and half a dozen convictions for inciting racial hatred while, at the same time, building a considerable following, particularly among disaffected young people of North African and African origin."

My mistake *Isnt*

"These kinds of exceptions, selective restrictions, and ambiguities in France’s freedom-of-expression laws have left the country vulnerable to charges of political favoritism. France might consider either a broader conception of free speech—the notion that the answer to bad speech is more speech—or doing a better job of clarifying what is allowed, and why. That it does not relates, once more, to France’s anti-clerical roots.

Although the French are in no mood for compromise at the moment, they might want to reflect on the fact that America’s Muslim minority, which is free to wear headscarves or not, is far more integrated into American life than France’s. The immediate response in France to the recent massacre has been more forcefully to push its “our way or the highway” form of assimilation, which has, frankly, not been working.

With France still reeling from last week’s deadly attacks, it may take time for a moderate response to prevail. But if the country wants to turn the attacks into a turning point for renewed national unity, it needs to show that its Republican values of freedom are inclusive and protect all its citizens—not only some of them. Last week’s tragedy could drive a wedge between violent extremists and France’s Muslims, the vast majority of whom are peaceful, or it could deepen the divide between France’s minorities and the rest of the country"

Jet wrote:
It doesnt matter why, the fact is that it does....

jec wrote:
Well that's thinking in absolutes... You can't compare mocking, inciting violence or endangering living, breathing people... to mocking an idea, be it political, religious or social...

I really dont know how many times I can say the same thing, so ill just post this. The first 8 mins of it.

Jet wrote:
Except we ARE responsible for propelling the radical elements to fight communism. The radicalism is the common element.

jec wrote:
Not condoning the actions of the west, but putting absolutely no blame on the religion is ridiculous...

Agreed. Just as putting it solely on religion is(as many believe as well) when its a far more complex issue than that

Jet wrote:
Thats not what MSM does. It gives 24/7 air time to attacks and focuses on making people scared.

jec wrote:There is no actual discussion on the main stream...

Thats my point. MSM provides no depth generally just fear/talking points at best

Jet wrote:
The problem is that idea is shared by so many and that has real consequences. We are better because we dont consider our actions terrorism

Are you certain that idea is shared by many? Last time I checked the polls, the public is against most of the US's military interventions, not to mention the international public opinion is pretty much against the US's foreign policy customs. Do you really believe the ones that actually make the decisions to go to war care what their countrymen believe? Cletus, Joe and Mary are not getting in the way of Oil Barons and private military contractors. 90% of the american public might think you're just as bad as the terrorists, they won't give a damn... what real world consequences?

Jet wrote:
He got what he wanted, years after the fact we are still there.

And the US is nowhere close to being broke or overexerting themselves...

Jet wrote:
My mistake *Isnt*

"These kinds of exceptions, selective restrictions, and ambiguities in France’s freedom-of-expression laws have left the country vulnerable to charges of political favoritism. France might consider either a broader conception of free speech—the notion that the answer to bad speech is more speech—or doing a better job of clarifying what is allowed, and why. That it does not relates, once more, to France’s anti-clerical roots.

Oh dear god... Have any of your article writers even read the damn french constitution or the philosophy behind freedom of speech? France and many other countries have, and always had legal forms of censorship based on the HARM PRINCIPLE. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY

There are hate speech laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." -  Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the basis of the Fifth French Republic...

In the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions
(Falsehood, Incitement, Obscenity, Child Pornography, etc)

Jet wrote: Although the French are in no mood for compromise at the moment, they might want to reflect on the fact that America’s Muslim minority, which is free to wear headscarves or not, is far more integrated into American life than France’s. The immediate response in France to the recent massacre has been more forcefully to push its “our way or the highway” form of assimilation, which has, frankly, not been working.

YES! Precisely, this is what I've been talking about. There is no melting in the melting pot. Why is America's muslim minority properly integrated to normal life? Well,

1. They don't lobby to impose Sharia laws
2. They don't lobby to ban the American flag in public places
3. They don't form a mirriad of muslim lobby groups

and I could go on... Do you see the difference between America's muslims and europe's muslims? How is a minority imposing new laws, contrary to the principles of the majority not gonna make the most populate demographic react angry and with distrust? They have to assimilate, not be coddled...

Jet wrote:

I really dont know how many times I can say the same thing, so ill just post this. The first 8 mins of it.

[/quote]

Refer to the already existing censorship laws mentioned above....

Jet wrote:
Thats my point. MSM provides no depth generally just fear/talking points at best

Fear? Ha! I wish... at least I would be entertained by seeing all those people flip out. It's just, "Those are isolated incidents" "Not the majority of the muslims" "It's just misunderstanding" yada yada yada...

I doubt we can change the greed of people. This has been intricate to human nature throughout history. There will always be a few powerful bastards wrecking havock on the world for the sake of money... changing a mentality of a religion, while hard, is possible. It might take two generations or two, but it can be done and it would be a lot easier.

Aziz Ansari had a spat with Rupert Murdoch on twitter. While he was right saying you can't blame all muslims, I believe when he said rhetorically "Rups can we get a step by step guide? How can my 60 year old parents in NC help destroy terrorist groups? Plz advise.", I believe a sensible answer could have been, "By telling your children and grandchildren that violence is never the answer... The violent passages of the Koran were written in a different context" or some shit like that...

Fuck, I'm not a homophobic, racist bastard because my father thought me to respect everyone regardless of race, gender or orientation when I was little...

ugh... even my local newspapers are featuring Reza Aslan now...

Jet wrote: The problem is that idea is shared by so many and that has real consequences. We are better because we dont consider our actions terrorism

jec wrote: Are you certain that idea is shared by many? Cletus, Joe and Mary are not getting in the way of Oil Barons and private military contractors. 90% of the american public might think you're just as bad as the terrorists, they won't give a damn... what real world consequences?

The people in charge of our foreign policy who keep doing the same shit over and over again yet expecting different results do...and of course it matters if everyday citizens think that way...they put them in office in the first place...... the consequences of that is a perpetual state of war.

And here are some results from that. Quotes from americas most dedicated sniper. You might have heard of him bradley cooper played him in a movie clint eastwood directed recently. Im not sure if there is an accurate way to assess how widespread these thoughts are...but its when they manifest in the people with power to act on them...thats a problem. As I keep saying the idea we are morally superior doesnt help.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/death_of_an_american_sniper/

'My shots saved several americans whose lives were clearly worth more than that twisted womans soul"

'"Savage despicable evil, thats what we were fighting in Iraq"

Jet wrote: He got what he wanted, years after the fact we are still there.

jec wrote: And the US is nowhere close to being broke or overexerting themselves...

Doesnt mean we arent losing needlessly. Or that innocents on the other side arent either.

Jet wrote: My mistake *Isnt* "These kinds of exceptions, selective restrictions, and ambiguities in France’s freedom-of-expression laws have left the country vulnerable to charges of political favoritism. France might consider either a broader conception of free speech—the notion that the answer to bad speech is more speech—or doing a better job of clarifying what is allowed, and why. That it does not relates, once more, to France’s anti-clerical roots.

jec wrote: Oh dear god... Have any of your article writers even read the damn french constitution or the philosophy behind freedom of speech? France and many other countries have, and always had legal forms of censorship based on the HARM PRINCIPLE. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY There are hate speech laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_France "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law." - Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, the basis of the Fifth French Republic... In the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions (Falsehood, Incitement, Obscenity, Child Pornography, etc)

A rally for free speech should produce a speech without this double standard. Jon Stewart had it right

Jet wrote: Although the French are in no mood for compromise at the moment, they might want to reflect on the fact that America’s Muslim minority, which is free to wear headscarves or not, is far more integrated into American life than France’s. The immediate response in France to the recent massacre has been more forcefully to push its “our way or the highway” form of assimilation, which has, frankly, not been working.

jec wrote:YES! Precisely, this is what I've been talking about. There is no melting in the melting pot. Why is America's muslim minority properly integrated to normal life? Well, 1. They don't lobby to impose Sharia laws 2. They don't lobby to ban the American flag in public places 3. They don't form a mirriad of muslim lobby groups and I could go on... Do you see the difference between America's muslims and europe's muslims? How is a minority imposing new laws, contrary to the principles of the majority not gonna make the most populate demographic react angry and with distrust? They have to assimilate, not be coddled...

I think the article is talking about france expecting muslims to assimilate "their way or the highway" which is not proving very effective. As youve said assimilation happens over generations it doesnt just happen overnight. While yes I would probably agree with that imposing new laws against the majority opinion is drawing angry reactions it also doesnt justify violence. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/firebombs-and-pigs-heads-thrown-into-mosques-as-antimuslim-attacks-increase-after-paris-shootings-9977423.html

Jet wrote: Thats my point. MSM provides no depth generally just fear/talking points at best

jec wrote: Aziz Ansari had a spat with Rupert Murdoch on twitter. While he was right saying you can't blame all muslims, I believe when he said rhetorically "Rups can we get a step by step guide? How can my 60 year old parents in NC help destroy terrorist groups? Plz advise.", I believe a sensible answer could have been, "By telling your children and grandchildren that violence is never the answer... The violent passages of the Koran were written in a different context" or some shit like that... Fuck, I'm not a homophobic, racist bastard because my father thought me to respect everyone regardless of race, gender or orientation when I was little...

That assumes the majority dont already know that.

Jet wrote:
The people in charge of our foreign policy who keep doing the same shit over and over again yet expecting different results do...and of course it matters if everyday citizens think that way...they put them in office in the first place...... the consequences of that is a perpetual state of war.

And here are some results from that. Quotes from americas most dedicated sniper. You might have heard of him bradley cooper played him in a movie clint eastwood directed recently. Im not sure if there is an accurate way to assess how widespread these thoughts are...but its when they manifest in the people with power to act on them...thats a problem. As I keep saying the idea we are morally superior doesnt help.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/death_of_an_american_sniper/

'My shots saved several americans whose lives were clearly worth more than that twisted womans soul"

'"Savage despicable evil, thats what we were fighting in Iraq"

A soldier is a tortured soul, both physically and mentally. I don't expect them to be sane. Even if they didn't agree with the war, they would have to follow orders. We only choose the president and the senators, not the man's cabinet or the senator's advisory team...

Jet wrote:
A rally for free speech should produce a speech without this double standard. Jon Stewart had it right

I can't see the video... Region locked... Now this type of censorship is another one that outrages me...

What's the double standard?

Jet wrote:
I think the article is talking about france expecting muslims to assimilate "their way or the highway" which is not proving very effective. As youve said assimilation happens over generations it doesnt just happen overnight. While yes I would probably agree with that imposing new laws against the majority opinion is drawing angry reactions it also doesnt justify violence.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/firebombs-and-pigs-heads-thrown-into-mosques-as-antimuslim-attacks-increase-after-paris-shootings-9977423.html  

Of course it doesn't justify violence, it only strengthens the cycle of hatred. The violence is just a reaction, a self defense mechanism. This is the reason it is said muslims are the most affected by terrorism... Violence against them increases, leading to more isolation. The muslim community has to be trusted again and a positive way to start is by not trying to impose laws that go against western values, in western countries...

Jet wrote:
That assumes the majority dont already know that.

Well, i'd be more convinced they did if the extremists didn't have to use scripture verses to convince young people that their actions are justified...

Jet wrote:
The people in charge of our foreign policy who keep doing the same shit over and over again yet expecting different results do...and of course it matters if everyday citizens think that way...they put them in office in the first place...... the consequences of that is a perpetual state of war.

And here are some results from that. Quotes from americas most dedicated sniper. You might have heard of him bradley cooper played him in a movie clint eastwood directed recently. Im not sure if there is an accurate way to assess how widespread these thoughts are...but its when they manifest in the people with power to act on them...thats a problem. As I keep saying the idea we are morally superior doesnt help.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/07/death_of_an_american_sniper/

'My shots saved several americans whose lives were clearly worth more than that twisted womans soul"

'"Savage despicable evil, thats what we were fighting in Iraq"

jec wrote:
A soldier is a tortured soul, both physically and mentally. I don't expect them to be sane. Even if they didn't agree with the war, they would have to follow orders. ..

The guy had a crusader tattoo...You SHOULD expect our soldiers to be sane. Every innocent life lost continues to the cycle of hatred. Yesterdays widow might be tomorrows extremist.

jec wrote:We only choose the president and the senators, not the man's cabinet or the senator's advisory team.

No but we do choose the president and the senators which is not a trivial thing. Our last president George W Bush only made the problem worse with the exact same bullshit 'we are morally superior' mentality....invoking the right to do so from god no less!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
As weve previously said religion was a part of whyve fought but not the only factor. I dont know why people dont see the same from islam. Its just "because its in their book. We erased the bad parts from our book"

Jet wrote:
A rally for free speech should produce a speech without this double standard. Jon Stewart had it right

jec wrote:
I can't see the video... Region locked... Now this type of censorship is another one that outrages me...

What's the double standard?

Its jon stewarts january 14th episode. Where he pointed out the free speech hypocrisy in the rally

Jet wrote:
I think the article is talking about france expecting muslims to assimilate "their way or the highway" which is not proving very effective. As youve said assimilation happens over generations it doesnt just happen overnight. While yes I would probably agree with that imposing new laws against the majority opinion is drawing angry reactions it also doesnt justify violence.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/firebombs-and-pigs-heads-thrown-into-mosques-as-antimuslim-attacks-increase-after-paris-shootings-9977423.html  

jec wrote:
Of course it doesn't justify violence, it only strengthens the cycle of hatred. The violence is just a reaction, a self defense mechanism. This is the reason it is said muslims are the most affected by terrorism... Violence against them increases, leading to more isolation. The muslim community has to be trusted again and a positive way to start is by not trying to impose laws that go against western values, in western countries...

This hardline my way or the highway approach is not working. If anything it just pushes both sides to extremes. When people are in a position where they feel fearful or threatened they cling to old values- not abandon them.

Jet wrote:
That assumes the majority dont already know that.

jec wrote:
Well, i'd be more convinced they did if the extremists didn't have to use scripture verses to convince young people that their actions are justified...

Its more than just scripture that contributes to this....to what extent can one accurately gauge all factors that make up religious extremism? The degree each factor does?

Jet wrote:
The guy had a crusader tattoo...You SHOULD expect our soldiers to be sane. Every innocent life lost continues to the cycle of hatred. Yesterdays widow might be tomorrows extremist.

Sane? Meh... I've been living in a war torn country for 60 years... anyone who willingly goes to a battlefield should be classified as insane if you ask me...

Jet wrote:
No but we do choose the president and the senators which is not a trivial thing. Our last president George W Bush only made the problem worse with the exact same bullshit 'we are morally superior' mentality....invoking the right to do so from god no less!  
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
As weve previously said religion was a part of whyve fought but not the only factor. I dont know why people dont see the same from islam. Its just "because its in their book. We erased the bad parts from our book"

Bush used god to (try to) convince the already skeptic population that the war was needed, just like the extremist use their God to do the same...I'm seeing a pattern here... Bush used the God card years after the invasion and support for the war didn't go up after these declarations.



Your rulers don't give a damn about you, and that's a fact.

Jet wrote:
Its jon stewarts january 14th episode. Where he pointed out the free speech hypocrisy in the rally

On the abuses to journalist and stuff? Sure, the powerful will always react if their real and tangible assets are threatened, not when their religions are mocked.

Jet wrote:
This hardline my way or the highway approach is not working. If anything it just pushes both sides to extremes. When people are in a position where they feel fearful or threatened they cling to old values- not run from them.

So what's the approach then? Let them have their way?

Jet wrote:
Its more than just scripture that contributes to this....to what extent can one accurately gauge all factors that make up religious extremism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEir8ORIks0

Jet wrote:
The guy had a crusader tattoo...You SHOULD expect our soldiers to be sane. Every innocent life lost continues to the cycle of hatred. Yesterdays widow might be tomorrows extremist.

jec wrote:
Sane? Meh... I've been living in a war torn country for 60 years... anyone who willingly goes to a battlefield should be classified as insane if you ask me...

holy shit youre 60?! No wonder youre so cranky. Ok. If we dont hold our soldiers to a high standard it only breeds further hostilities. So its in our benefit to not spread this mentality of superioty.

Jet wrote:
"No but we do choose the president and the senators which is not a trivial thing. Our last president George W Bush only made the problem worse with the exact same bullshit 'we are morally superior' mentality....invoking the right to do so from god no less!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
As weve previously said religion was a part of whyve fought but not the only factor. I dont know why people dont see the same from islam. Its just "because its in their book. We erased the bad parts from our book"

jec wrote:
Bush used god to (try to) convince the already skeptic population that the war was needed, just like the extremist use their God to do the same...I'm seeing a pattern here... Bush used the God card years after the invasion and support for the war didn't go up after these declarations.



Your rulers don't give a damn about you, and that's a fact.

What? Support for the war was high at the time. So much to the point that so many journalists are ashamed they didnt challenge the administrations claim. It obviously wasnt high afterward because it was a failed war.

As for your last point...ok? I didnt assert that our rulers cared about the general population. Thats not at all what I said. This was:

jet wrote:
No but we do choose the president and the senators which is not a trivial thing[Meaning it has real world consequences]. Our last president George W Bush only made the problem worse with the exact same bullshit 'we are morally superior' mentality....invoking the right to do so from god no less!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
As weve previously said religion was a part of whyve fought but not the only factor. I dont know why people dont see the same from islam. Its just "because its in their book. We erased the bad parts from our book

I added the part in brackets. But im glad youre starting to see the pattern. Our governments and extremists are morally equivalent. While our religious books might no longer say "I bring not peace but the sword" sometimes our actions do.

Jet wrote:
Its jon stewarts january 14th episode. Where he pointed out the free speech hypocrisy in the rally

jec wrote:
On the abuses to journalist and stuff?

No after that. Where he criticized frances jailing of the comedian I linked to earlier as hypocritical after their rally.

Jet wrote:
This hardline my way or the highway approach is not working. If anything it just pushes both sides to extremes. When people are in a position where they feel fearful or threatened they cling to old values- not run from them.

jec wrote:
So what's the approach then? Let them have their way?

Well France is a democracy right? Unless youre suggesting changing that assimilation will happen over time, provided the government focuses on the process by providing good jobs and inclusion. I was talking to a muslim friend of mine recently and he told me the time when he stopped practicing his religion was when he started dating his now wife, who was not of his faith. He has a good financial status and hes now an atheist as well.

Hm im reading up a bit more on it and it seems intermarriage tends to lead to a more secular - if not progressive generation. I couldnt find a chart but ive seen Irshad Manji on cnn a few times and shes been saying the rates are increasing so thats one way.
http://kcbx.org/post/despite-charlie-hebdo-optimism-future-islam-europe

Jet wrote:
Its more than just scripture that contributes to this....to what extent can one accurately gauge all factors that make up religious extremism?

jec wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEir8ORIks0

So its all Islam? Im asking how accurately can one gauge the degree each factor(to remind you I include religion in this) contributes to this extremism? Is it 99% islam? 97%? Unless you no longer believe outside factors are involved.

Jet wrote:
holy shit youre 60?! No wonder youre so cranky. Ok. If we dont hold our soldiers to a high standard it only breeds further hostilities. So its in our benefit to not spread this mentality of superioty.

You know what I mean....
Or maybe stop glorifying your soldiers, which is something unique to the US and not unique to all the western countries that have interfered in the ME and SW Asia.

Jet wrote:

What? Support for the war was high at the time. So much to the point that so many journalists are ashamed they didnt challenge the administrations claim. It obviously wasnt high afterward because it was a failed war.

As for your last point...ok? I didnt assert that our rulers cared about the general population. Thats not at all what I said. This was:

I know what you said. Tell me... do elected officials tend to hold on to their promises once they are elected? People think it's "morally superior" to act on climate change, to legalize pot, for marriage equality, etc. Is it ever acted upon? No.

Jet wrote:I added the part in brackets. But im glad youre starting to see the pattern. Our governments and extremists are morally equivalent. While our religious books might no longer say "I bring not peace but the sword" sometimes our actions do.

That's not the pattern I'm seeing...
Remember, the god card wasn't played until after the war was launched, which obviously had a lot of support considering you were just attacked.
After the god card was played, the sentiment for the war did not increase in the US. While when the allah card is played over there, you have more recruits lining up. I clearly see which group of people considers themselves morally superior and it isn't the US...



Support for US's foreign intervention has been gradually decreasing through time. I don't see American's supporting or thinking themselves morally superior to incite this types of actions. The reason the war started was supported at the start of it was because you had just been attacked...

Jet wrote:
No after that. Where he criticized frances jailing of the comedian I linked to earlier as hypocritical after their rally.

I already posted why he was arrested. He actually committed a crime under french law. The comments after the attacks were not his first, the police were already onto him for many anti-semitic comments, which is a form of hate speech which punishable under french law. Let's hope the evidence is for him and he'll be set free.
Hypocrisy is when two things are the same. It isn't in this case.

Jet wrote:
Well France is a democracy right? Unless youre suggesting changing that assimilation will happen over time, provided the government focuses on the process by providing good jobs and inclusion. I was talking to a muslim friend of mine recently and he told me the time when he stopped practicing his religion was when he started dating his now wife, who was not of his faith. He has a good financial status and hes now an atheist as well.

You can't force people to accept them. If the french government simply gave them good jobs, they would obviously interact with the rest of the population which will react with mistrust and hate solving nothing. I don't think we should approach them and say, "Hey! Come with us and in no time, you'll loose your faith!"

Jet wrote: Hm im reading up a bit more on it and it seems intermarriage tends to lead to a more secular - if not progressive generation. I couldnt find a chart but ive seen Irshad Manji on cnn a few times and shes been saying the rates are increasing so thats one way.
http://kcbx.org/post/despite-charlie-hebdo-optimism-future-islam-europe

Yes. Demographic projections show that non religious people are gonna be majority by 2035. But if the alienation of groups continue to happen, the trend of intermarriage might reverse.

Jet wrote:

So its all Islam? Im asking how accurately can one gauge the degree each factor(to remind you I include religion in this) contributes to this extremism? Is it 99% islam? 97%? Unless you no longer believe outside factors are involved.

Personally I'd give it a 70%... I cannot look at those sermons and say... "Well, its probably not their fault"

Jet wrote:
holy shit youre 60?! No wonder youre so cranky. Ok. If we dont hold our soldiers to a high standard it only breeds further hostilities. So its in our benefit to not spread this mentality of superioty.

jec wrote:
You know what I mean....
Or maybe stop glorifying your soldiers, which is something unique to the US and not unique to all the western countries that have interfered in the ME and SW Asia.

Thats an additional thing we can do

Jet wrote:

What? Support for the war was high at the time. So much to the point that so many journalists are ashamed they didnt challenge the administrations claim. It obviously wasnt high afterward because it was a failed war.

As for your last point...ok? I didnt assert that our rulers cared about the general population. Thats not at all what I said. This was:

jec wrote:
I know what you said. Tell me... do elected officials tend to hold on to their promises once they are elected? People think it's "morally superior" to act on climate change, to legalize pot, for marriage equality, etc. Is it ever acted upon? No.

Well it is in war.

Jet wrote:I added the part in brackets. But im glad youre starting to see the pattern. Our governments and extremists are morally equivalent. While our religious books might no longer say "I bring not peace but the sword" sometimes our actions do.

jec wrote:
That's not the pattern I'm seeing...
Remember, the god card wasn't played until after the war was launched, which obviously had a lot of support considering you were just attacked.
After the god card was played, the sentiment for the war did not increase in the US. While when the allah card is played over there, you have more recruits lining up. I clearly see which group of people considers themselves morally superior and it isn't the US...

We are constantly told we are an exceptional people who deserve a special place in the world for many reasons, one of them our morality. It is the standard now.

jec wrote:
Support for US's foreign intervention has been gradually decreasing through time. I don't see American's supporting or thinking themselves morally superior to incite this types of actions. The reason the war started was supported at the start of it was because you had just been attacked...

Support has been decreasing because we havent been successful in that intervention. That might have been the reason why the war was started but immediately afterwards it was a flood of propagandized rhetoric "you are with us or you are against us"
"US against the bad guys" who want to take our freedoms, the "Axis of Evil" and the like. Ironically it was our own government who ended up doing that. Along with the conveinent word "terrorist" which can now be used to neatly justify our actions when needed. Anyway I doubt the average american doesnt think we are morally superior over our enemies. Weve been told so for years now, including by obama

Jet wrote:
No after that. Where he criticized frances jailing of the comedian I linked to earlier as hypocritical after their rally.

jec wrote:
I already posted why he was arrested. He actually committed a crime under french law. The comments after the attacks were not his first, the police were already onto him for many anti-semitic comments, which is a form of hate speech which punishable under french law. Let's hope the evidence is for him and he'll be set free.
Hypocrisy is when two things are the same. It isn't in this case.

If theyre going to claim free speech they should get rid of those hate laws. You should find a way to watch the video.

Jet wrote:
Well France is a democracy right? Unless youre suggesting changing that assimilation will happen over time, provided the government focuses on the process by providing good jobs and inclusion. I was talking to a muslim friend of mine recently and he told me the time when he stopped practicing his religion was when he started dating his now wife, who was not of his faith. He has a good financial status and hes now an atheist as well.

jec wrote:
You can't force people to accept them. If the french government simply gave them good jobs, they would obviously interact with the rest of the population which will react with mistrust and hate solving nothing. I don't think we should approach them and say, "Hey! Come with us and in no time, you'll loose your faith!"

We cant say for certain how theyd react.

Jet wrote: Hm im reading up a bit more on it and it seems intermarriage tends to lead to a more secular - if not progressive generation. I couldnt find a chart but ive seen Irshad Manji on cnn a few times and shes been saying the rates are increasing so thats one way.
http://kcbx.org/post/despite-charlie-hebdo-optimism-future-islam-europe

jec wrote:
Yes. Demographic projections show that non religious people are gonna be majority by 2035. But if the alienation of groups continue to happen, the trend of intermarriage might reverse.

Then the answer is to build towards making sure alienation doesnt happen.

Jet wrote:

So its all Islam? Im asking how accurately can one gauge the degree each factor(to remind you I include religion in this) contributes to this extremism? Is it 99% islam? 97%? Unless you no longer believe outside factors are involved.

jec wrote:
Personally I'd give it a 70%...

Howd you come to that number?

Jet wrote:If theyre going to claim free speech they should get rid of those hate laws. You should find a way to watch the video.

Hate laws are based on the harm principle. If you keep telling people, "THE JEWS ARE THE ENEMY!" "LET'S KICK THEM OUT!!!" and so forth, enough times, someone might take you up on that and act on it. Just like you said, the government keeps telling american's they're special... the majority believes and acts on it.

Jet wrote:Howd you come to that number?

Fine... 68%...

Jet wrote:If theyre going to claim free speech they should get rid of those hate laws. You should find a way to watch the video.

jec wrote:
Hate laws are based on the harm principle. If you keep telling people, "THE JEWS ARE THE ENEMY!" "LET'S KICK THEM OUT!!!" and so forth, enough times, someone might take you up on that and act on it. Just like you said, the government keeps telling american's they're special... the majority believes and acts on it.

Ah excellent so you agree with my earlier point then. I do agree that rhetoric can contribute to violence but one can also argue that criminalizing speech doesn't make it go away, but rather can potentially make it more dangerous than it otherwise would be by driving it underground.

Jet wrote:Howd you come to that number?

jec wrote:
Fine... 68%...

I dont understand how your meter works jec.

Oooooo new star wars rebels tomorrow. Brando is gonna be in it. Such a shame its on disney xd I dont watch anything on there except that show so I miss it sometimes.

I've read too much of the Koran, suffered too much at the hands of religious people... So I'm probably a bit biased...

Thats very big of you to admit jec. None of us are above bias. Conscious or unconscious.

Israel just killed an Iranian general...

*facepalm*

The nightly show premieres tn....gonna miss xolbert but lets see how larry wilmore does.
John oliver is back in a couple weeks too. Surprised it took hbo this long to get a comedy news show....its well put together

It begins in force now.....

.
Any1 watching the nightly show? Finally got someone with color on late night again

nope

It was akright

arsenio