Islamic State bombs also killed 44 people in Lebanon before two days. I don't try to compare tragedies but it's sad that nobody cares about that attack because it didn't happen in Europe.

"You can't say the same for jihad, say where a third generation Muslim that has lived his whole life in North Carolina finds it a good use of his time to migrate to Syria and become one with the Holy Caliphate."
See my point above. Also, that is also reducing that decision to a simplistic mechanism. We're looking at a lack of context again.

"That is precisely because of religion. The same way that a Catholic goes to an AIDS ravaged country and preaches the sinfulness in condom use is. Buddhist terrorist attacks are on the other side of the spectrum."
Yes, because of religion within a specific context. Again, none of this happens in a vacuum. You can't single out religion here. Nobody is denying that it is an essential ingredient in this mess - but singling it out and turning it into a scapegoat is just as inaccurate. Counter example: Al Qaeda - a group with geopolitical goals that uses religious rhetoric. ISIS is pretty much the polar opposite of them (despite being founded by a former Al Qaeda member).

"The example of Tibet is another great one, because they find themselves in a very similar situation as Palestine, but they aren't acting out in the same violence to a large degree because they practise the most compassionate form of Buddhism."
True. Although I don't entirely see what specific point you're trying to make here.
I mean, are you trying to make the point here that "Islam is bad" wrapped in historical/academic analysis? Are you merely pointing out that Islam - like other major monotheist religions - are prone to abuse?


"Call me out if I'm laying out an argument against a position you don't hold, if I'm missing the point here- because I may well be hahah! Best thing on an outset of an argument is to remind the person you're arguing against that you are prone to the inadequacies of humanity!"
No problem.

"but it's not an exactly helpful one is it"
Not really, unless someone is actually planning to ban or eradicate these religions which would undoubtedly go over as smoothly as attempts did in the past.

"Islamic State bombs also killed 44 people in Lebanon before 2 todays. I don't try to compare tragedies but it's sad that nobody cares about that attack because it didn't happen in Europe."
Two things: A) People can care for more than one thing, these types of comparisons are dumb. B) Obviously people are going to care for things that are closer to them. That's a basic psychological mechanism, the further the distance the easier it is not to go too much into it. Evolutionarily this also makes sense, twofold: A) we didn't evolve to live in such huge, globalized communities and B) defense mechanism so you don't get overwhelmed.

Obviously media coverage also plays a huge role here.

What are the principles of Islam?

Obviously media coverage also plays a huge role here

Exactly. That was my point but i didn't explain myself very well. My problem is that nobody on the TV said anything about the Lebanon situation. Of course, as you said, people care more about what happens near them but that's not an excuse for the media. They could at least talk about that attack for 5 minutes or something.

"Only if the adherents of that religion pay attention to that and put that forward into action. Again, particularly monotheistic religions deliver all the material you need for all kinds of idiotic bullshit - that doesn't necessarily make it more likely for those things to happen. It just gives them the easiest rationalization."

So this seems to be at the heart of the schism we're having here - you are saying that singling out religion as the absolute motivating factor isn't correct even in the cases where it invariably is (like the example of North Carolina), because it is a reductionist argument, religion is always part of a mix, a mix that is complicated and essential to judging every single geopolitical and social situation accurately. And doing otherwise is using religion as a scapegoat. But in a case like the North Carolina one- I mean let me first lay out that this isn't just some random hypothetical thought experiment I'm drawing up. You find people all over the Western, democratized world who have gone and joined ISIS. People who are completely normal computer scientists one day, to radical Islamists the next. And they aren't psychopaths, their families will tell you that they are perfectly rational people that they have loved for their whole lives and are horrified that they have given up their life and their children for this cult. In other words, they could not find themselves doing anything of the sort they are doing, but for the convictions they hold in the religion they follow. Is this a minority? Yes. I won't argue that everyone that has joined Al-Qauda and the Taliban are exclusively religious; I know it is anecdotal evidence but I have met people that have spent 6 Years in Afghanistan and they agree that there's a weird tribalistic, nationalistic brew going on with some of the combatants that has found its way through the guise of religiously-stated grievances. But there are truly examples that prove there are absolutes in the world. Things can really be black and white on so much of the canvas that the grey on the fringe is insignificant, even within the context of an intellectual discussion. I don't think it is wrong to reduce it to a single driving mechanism.
"I mean, are you trying to make the point here that "Islam is bad" wrapped in historical/academic analysis? Are you merely pointing out that Islam - like other major monotheist religions - are prone to abuse?"
Hmm. I suppose I'm pointing out that literalist Islam is incredibly harmful and that the doctrine is sometimes the defining factor, the sole idler wheel and should be talked soberly as such. But we should remember that we agree almost fundamentally with each other on most on the major points!

I apologize for not addressing all your points in the fullest, it's 4am here and I should've gone to bed hours ago ahah! But I'm glad we could continue this argument in good faith and look forward to revisiting it tomorrow with the hangover I will invariably have.

"o this seems to be at the heart of the schism we're having here - you are saying that singling out religion as the absolute motivating factor isn't correct even in the cases where it invariably is (like the example of North Carolina), because it is a reductionist argument, religion is always part of a mix, a mix that is complicated and essential to judging every single geopolitical and social situation accurately."
Yes.

"And doing otherwise is using religion as a scapegoat."
No, I'm saying that singling out religion can easily become scapegoating them. And THAT is an issue. But as always, it depends on the context. See my last point.

"But in a case like the North Carolina one- I mean let me first lay out that this isn't just some random hypothetical thought experiment I'm drawing up. You find people all over the Western, democratized world who have gone and joined ISIS. People who are completely normal computer scientists one day, to radical Islamists the next."
There are always rogue variables, also whether they love their families or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is their ideology, whether they feel alienated or disenfranchsied (so far the investigations into these people seems to indicate a correlation here, as radical ideologies generally seem to fall on fertile soil with such people).

"And they aren't psychopaths,"
I don't think you know what "psychopath" means. A psychopath is a person who is unable to feel empathy. Most psychopaths have completely normal lives, most are non-violent - those who are violent are mostly so in an organized setting (i.e. the military).

"their families will tell you that they are perfectly rational people that they have loved for their whole lives and are horrified that they have given up their life and their children for this cult."
I'm not a fan of anecdotal evidence so I can't really say this a convincing argument. Humans can easily live contradictory lives.

"In other words, they could not find themselves doing anything of the sort they are doing, but for the convictions they hold in the religion they follow."
Again, the above anecdotes are not sufficient to establish such a conclusion if you ask me. People are fallible and easily fooled.

"Is this a minority? Yes. I won't argue that everyone that has joined Al-Qauda and the Taliban are exclusively religious; I know it is anecdotal evidence but I have met people that have spent 6 Years in Afghanistan and they agree that there's a weird tribalistic, nationalistic brew going on with some of the combatants that has found its way through the guise of religiously-stated grievances."
Again, we gotta differentiate between AQ and ISIS here - who are pretty much at odds with each other (and ISIS obviously being the stronger power, I'm actually not sure to which degree AQ even still holds much power in these regions).


"But there are truly examples that prove there are absolutes in the world. Things can really be black and white on so much of the canvas that the grey on the fringe is insignificant, even within the context of an intellectual discussion. I don't think it is wrong to reduce it to a single driving mechanism."
What? By whose standards? That's a matter of judgement and values, i.e. not material fact, not falsifiable and therefore not generally valid. Also, it's not about whether it's "wrong" - it's about whether it's adequate. I would say it's not - particularly if it's based on presumptions which are in turn based on weak indications.


"Hmm. I suppose I'm pointing out that literalist Islam is incredibly harmful and that the doctrine is sometimes the defining factor, the sole idler wheel and should be talked soberly as such."

We agree on that point, although your use of "doctrine" here is too vague for me. Islamic doctrine? The specific fundamentalist doctrine? You'll have to be a bit more specific (we law people are a very nitpicky bunch). This also seems to run counter to what you were getting at before.

"I apologize for not addressing all your points in the fullest, it's 4am here and I should've gone to bed hours ago ahah! But I'm glad we could continue this argument in good faith and look forward to revisiting it tomorrow with the hangover I will invariably have."
Np.

still goin?

I like that this is still going, it is actually a pretty mature debate now, that's rare in here

Obviously.

we've been havin mature debates for over a decade here on sputnik.

plus we've asked the most important question:










does












it














riff

?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQE1Q1NILfQ

take this terrorists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0Oka6fB_xo

you cant stop us

oh wow, this caught some extreme wind

double post

Lol everyone's mad

Never ever ever ever ever ever ever not be angry

"Exactly. That was my point but i didn't explain myself very well. My problem is that nobody on the TV said anything about the Lebanon situation. Of course, as you said, people care more about what happens near them but that's not an excuse for the media. They could at least talk about that attack for 5 minutes or something."

They're is a much bigger reason the media doesn't want you feeling compassion for people in the east, and it goes beyond proximity, although motives vary depending on the source.