Meanwhile in London: Beheading in broad daylight

[Malcador]

It's all about the context.  We were having a pretty interesting conversation about the swastika, and it was out of place to go for a personal dig.  It derailed a nice debate.  Then it turned into a whole "I don't care what you think!" and it got silly.  Seems like a pretty typical day in the WOT to me.

Should be easy to ignore. But then again, consider the forum. At least it's mildly entertaining to watch.

[Walsingham]

Heh.

 

Well, I will say, my greatest fear in getting old is that I'll stop giving a **** completely. Sounds like you're way ahead of me, Malc.

[Malcador]

Hah, well not that bad such that I'm apathetic, but when it comes to dealing with people it's easy enough to get a sense of what they want when they say something - up to you to give it to them. That and conserve your outrage. :D

[Rostere]

The sad part about this, is that the are really few places on the internet where there's actual effert to have free speech-forums. RPGCodex is one of them, and there's a swedish one that i visit as well: Flashback. That's about it from the top of my head.

 

I really appreciate the existence of RPGCodex and Flashback, but at the end of the day, political and historical discussions at both forums tend to be derailed rather quickly (when the Codex still had the GD subforum, that is). Flashback is great for reading about borderline-legal craziness such as the guy who woke up with a deer tied to a tree with a rope in his garden (or how was it?), and amateur investigative journalism. There are lots of legendary threads over there.

[Nepenthe]

I agree fully with this.  

 

But I also get why Germany bans it, they are trying to distance themselves from a terrible chapter in heir history.

 

 

IIRC, it's banned by the (West) German constitution which was dictated by the Allies post-WW2. Less a question of what the Germans want one way or the other.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Only in your mind.  Probably because it lets you avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

If your point was purely about letting him know that you disagreed, you would have simply stated your point and left it at that.  Lets look at your original quote:

 

"You don't get to disallow and villify a symbol jsut because you don't like it. Hitler was a bad man. Yes."

 

Someone behaved in a way that you feel is inappropriate.  As such, you're not simply voicing your displeasure... you've stated that he straight up is not allowed to disallow and vilify a symbol simply because he doesn't like it.  In other words, you're telling him how to behave... the very thing that you tell other people that they can't do to you or anyone else.

 

Or, by the contrary, there's a difference between actively "forcing" (your words) someone to behave in a certain way and another person suggesting that attempting to "take back" the swastika isn't something worth the trouble.

 

After all, you snapped on Hurlshot.

 

 

I will, however, gladly recant my position that you are doing the very thing you dislike, if you acknowledge that people on this thread are behaving the same way as you.

 

 

There is no dissonance. Or should I say there is one only in YOUR mind.

 

You equate two things that aren't equal.

 

Resisting someones attempt to pressure or force a change or thouts/behaviro is NOT the same as actively pressuring someone to change.

 

One is a "offensive" action, the other is "defensive".

You argue that by saying "you don't have the right to force me" I am actually telling people that they shouldn't behave in such a way to try and force me , thus actually ordering them to change their behavior.

The actualy difference in the behavior and goal is compeltely lost on you.

 

It is getting redicolous.

 

According to you, I should never, ever speak up against anything. You know..if someone is beating me to death I shouldn't tell him to stop, because that would be trying to force him to change his behavior. We can't have that.

 

 

 

 

We both know that's not how human beings work.  You state your perspective for the hopes of convincing other people to adopt your perspective.  I say mine to have you reign it in a little.  You say yours because you think that that is an ideal.  I say mine because I consider my perspective to be ideal.  The same goes for everyone else in this thread.

 

Wether someone adopts my perspective or not is out of my hands..and I cenrtanly won't try to force it... UNLESS it's directly harmfull to me.

 

 

 

I say that if you are saying that you genuinely don't care what other ideals (ideals... not ideas or things) people believe in, then you're not being entirely honest with yourself.  Because if you didn't care what other people idealized, you wouldn't have bothered sharing your perspective.  Stating that it's just because you enjoy discussion is a way to avoid cognitive dissonance, as there are fundamental paradoxes associated with your ideal (most do, as ideals don't reflect reality).  You speak out against the ideals you don't believe in, because you want yours (which you feel are the best, by virtue of choosing to believe in those ones over others) to become more common.  Why?  Because you consider them the better ideals?  If you didn't, you'd believe in something else.

 

You a psychology major?

Because if you are not (and even if you are) I reject your reasoning and the conclusions you reached. You also missed the point, since you started focusing on ideals (and I said I don't care what X thinks of ME)

 

Trying to divine the reasoning of others is based on much assumptions and projection.

You don't know what drives me nor my reasons. You think you do.

 

But I could be posting this simply because I like to be contrary...or maybe becuase I hate you. OR maybe because I got a screw loose and I simply don't reason the same way as other people do.

You don't know...

[Walsingham]

Hah, well not that bad such that I'm apathetic, but when it comes to dealing with people it's easy enough to get a sense of what they want when they say something - up to you to give it to them. That and conserve your outrage. :D

 

Well, I take your point about conserving outrage in good faith. But if I can't get upset about soldiers being beheaded on the streets of London I don't really know what I'm saving it up for. Racist squirrels butt****ing the queen on prime-time TV?

[TrashMan]

 

And that's all it took ? Heh.

 

It's all about the context.  We were having a pretty interesting conversation about the swastika, and it was out of place to go for a personal dig.  It derailed a nice debate.  Then it turned into a whole "I don't care what you think!" and it got silly.  Seems like a pretty typical day in the WOT to me.  

 

 

We were having a nive conversation untill some peopel decided it was more "interesting" to try to focus on me or psychoanalize me.

 

I frankly consider the opposition turning to directly attack you a sign of victory.

[Malcador]

Not if they pull out guns.

 

Well, I take your point about conserving outrage in good faith. But if I can't get upset about soldiers being beheaded on the streets of London I don't really know what I'm saving it up for. Racist squirrels butt****ing the queen on prime-time TV?

I was more thinking along the lines of the pants-twisting going on, not the murder of the British guy.

[Walsingham]

 

We were having a nive conversation untill some peopel decided it was more "interesting" to try to focus on me or psychoanalize me.

 

I frankly consider the opposition turning to directly attack you a sign of victory.

 

 

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's just a kind of motherly concern.

[ravenshrike]

 

But thats what happens in a society where responsible citizen aren't allowed to carry weapons to defend themselves or others that are being attacked.

Yup, that worked out so well in 1. Boston. Or that 2. schoolshooting. Or the 3. Batman shooting. Or the 4. New York sniper. Or the multitude of family dramas. Or the 5. schoolshootings. Etc. etc.

It only looks like it helps the perpetrators. Or is that what you want?

 

 

1. Yes, because people are suggesting guns work against anonymous bombs.

2. Gun Free Zone that is a felony to ignore. Just like every other school shooting.

3. Oddly enough, he picked the ONLY movie theater that banned CC within a 40 mi radius of his house. And no it was not the closest or biggest movie theater nearby either.

4. Do you mean DC snipers? Correct, it wouldn't have. Of course, the casualty count of the DC snipers was correspondingly low.

5. See number 2

 

As for family dramas, if one excludes black people from both the victim list and perpetrator list, the murder rate in the US is cut in half. And that's only removing 11-12% of the population And yes, race, or to be truly specific culture as it applies only to urban black populaitons when you bore down into the numbers, holds a much stronger correlation than income or pop. density.

[Walsingham]

I hope I'm not sounding too harsh if I say that for terrorists it certainly helps if they know that no-one in a given crowd is armed. If there's even a small possibility it complicates their job hugely.

 

However, in the case of the London attack I'm not sure these two brain trusts would have thought it through that far. Nor do I feel that Lee Rigby would have been wandering around near his barracks armed.

[Malcador]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10496634/Lee-Rigby-case-Muslim-fanatic-said-he-killed-soldier-in-most-humane-way-he-could.html

[Meshugger]

Has he even gotten a medical exam yet? Just wondering.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

After having studied Middle Eastern history (my focus) I've become less and less an advocate for immigration from that region and Africa. Simply because I don't feel it'll help either the Middleeast in general or Europe. They need able bodied men and their educated, while the labor problems we have can be mitigated with a more natural movement of people within Europe (East to West). As it stands now we receive the torture victims, traditionalists, uneducated farmers and religious people - and the well educated who have an easy time fitting in (but have a PR problem due to the affiliation with the first group)..

 

The first group gets a huuge culture shock when they arrive, quite obviously and have a hard time adapting to what they feel is a decadent society - while apparently most Europeans see them as backwards and ignorant. It's a horrible mix. I wish we could take them in and integrate them better and especially if we could share with them the best of our culture and take the best from theirs. And both emerge stronger from the interaction. But it's become such a polluted topic that any reasonable approach is basically beyond our reach now. So better to cut our losses for everyone's sake.

 

Very much so. Its become forbidden to discuss the matter in a reasonable manner without raising a ****storm of accusations. The climate is so unhealthy it actually helped create a monster like Breivik and in Hungary, it even had a hand (along with the economic crisis) in bringing a more or less openly fascist party to power. 

 

 

Excuse me, but... what?

[Raithe]

Hm, what was that quote from Putin..

"If minorities prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination".

[Wrath of Dagon]

Putin often makes a ton of sense. Yet you wouldn't want to live under his rule.

[Walsingham]

There should

 

Putin often makes a ton of sense. Yet you wouldn't want to live under his rule.

 

There should be a clue in there somewhere.

[Wrath of Dagon]

And?

[BruceVC]

And?

 

I assume he means that despite the perception that Putin makes sense the reality is most of us wouldn't want to live in Russia. So good advice from any president is moot if the country he governs has serious social and political problems. And I agree with this, Putin should strive to make Russia more like Western countries as far as his social responsibilities are concerned.

[Katphood]

Somewhere at some point in history, the world fell into the hands of the wrong people. 

[Kroney]

There really ought to be some sort of distinction between people committing acts of organised terrorism and a pair of nutters committing murder. People murder for all sorts of ****ed up reasons, including but not limited to the old "god told me to" defence. That doesn't make it an act of terrorism.

 

In any case, the reasons for them doing it are irrelevant. The law will try them for murder. They will go down for murder. The law really only distinguishes between "did you kill this guy on purpose, by accident, or during a moment of madness?", it does not legitimise it. The only thing that legitimises killing is society's attitude. Since society's opinion is that this killing was abhorrent and unjustified, peoples' attitudes towards Islam are also irrelevant, just as the killers' attitudes toward Islam are irrelevant.

 

 

[BruceVC]

Somewhere at some point in history, the world fell into the hands of the wrong people. 

 

I know your comment is more philosophical than real political commentary but I don't agree with this perspective anyway.

 

The world has evolved in many areas. Mankind is more educated than ever before. You just have to go back 40 years to see the benighted state the global community was in. We had the Cold War and we didn't even acknowledge the importance of equal social representation of all minority groups in certain countries. Of course this is still a problem in some countries but at least we have meaningful dialogue around these problems

 

No I firmly believe we are living the greatest age of mankind and its only going to get better

[HoonDing]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10496634/Lee-Rigby-case-Muslim-fanatic-said-he-killed-soldier-in-most-humane-way-he-could.html

Beheading may indeed very well be the most humane sharia punishment.

 

No I firmly believe we are living the greatest age of mankind and its only going to get better

That's what people have been saying again and again the past four million years.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Drudanae

[Malcador]

Just have a funny image of my head of them thinking of getting hold of some poison they use to put down dogs and then killing the soldier with it.  Humane, after all.