Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Western Values v. Islam in this Modern World

YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

The idea that there is no threat presented by the refugees in Europe is absurd. It would be absurd to think that these are just a group of people who were coming to Europe because they are seeking Europe's help. It would be absurd to think that they do not blame Europe, in large part for their plight. It would be more absurd yet to think that they, in coming to Europe, will adapt to European values and a Western way of life.

It would be even more absurd to welcome them with the assumption that this group of people who has come to Europe will remain without causing any problems for the countries to which they go. This is a group of people who has grown up under conditions where they will have formed intensely negative views towards Europe, and the West.

At the core, Middle Eastern culture and Western culture is incompatible, and assimilating this group with Western culture in the state that it is in is going to be entirely too dangerous to justify the risk -especially where the potential for net gains is so low. What should have happened is that the West should have dealt with the problem in their country, so that it didn't percolate into ours. But we are too late for that now.

Older europeans will remember what the continent was like before this postmodern fall. But younger Europeans, and especially transplants and the children of immigrants to Europe, do not.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 2:32:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 2:31:59 AM, YYW wrote:
Martin O'Malley's suggestion that we should welcome Syrian refugees is insane.

As is Clinton's.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 9:01:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

Wait what ? you think organized religion and it's down fall is a determinant to western society ?

Maybe you should tell us what you think the fundamentals of western society is............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 10:01:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

The idea that there is no threat presented by the refugees in Europe is absurd. It would be absurd to think that these are just a group of people who were coming to Europe because they are seeking Europe's help. It would be absurd to think that they do not blame Europe, in large part for their plight. It would be more absurd yet to think that they, in coming to Europe, will adapt to European values and a Western way of life.

It would be even more absurd to welcome them with the assumption that this group of people who has come to Europe will remain without causing any problems for the countries to which they go. This is a group of people who has grown up under conditions where they will have formed intensely negative views towards Europe, and the West.

At the core, Middle Eastern culture and Western culture is incompatible, and assimilating this group with Western culture in the state that it is in is going to be entirely too dangerous to justify the risk -especially where the potential for net gains is so low. What should have happened is that the West should have dealt with the problem in their country, so that it didn't percolate into ours. But we are too late for that now.

Older europeans will remember what the continent was like before this postmodern fall. But younger Europeans, and especially transplants and the children of immigrants to Europe, do not.

Yes the open door approach most of europe has to illegal migrants is clearly a bad decision. All illegal migrants that are not citizens should be deported to their country of origin and proper border controls should be set up to stop migrants getting into europe in the first place. If they knew that they had no chance of getting into europe the numbers attempting the trip would reduce significantly. The migrants are an economic burden and in some isolated cases a national security risk to European countries. Yes some migrants have fled conflicts but many other people have stayed in the area where the conflict is happening and they are not getting help. Clearly the Syrian conflict needs to be stopped. This would allow for a safe way of returning many migrants and reduce the flow of new ones.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 11:25:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 2:31:59 AM, YYW wrote:
Martin O'Malley's suggestion that we should welcome Syrian refugees is insane.

We should encourage more migration through Europe though as a punishment for decades of token European assistance in the Middle East. "Not In My Backyard" is a good motivating factor for a nation when altruism predictably fails.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 12:12:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Heaven forbid there exists a real cost associated with neglecting your military obligations in favor of providing bread for the European circus.... historically predictable.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 2:13:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

Where are you getting this from? Who exactly is afraid to remonstrate or condemn this attack on Paris or the cowardliness and inhumanity of the attackers? Who? Or is it your intention to dismiss attempts to not to implicate Muslims as people or Islam as a religion in perverse acts of terrorism?

Such opinions are tone-deaf, unnuanced, and utterly reprehensible. What separates you from far-right bigots who exploit every such tragedy to advance their hateful ideology?

Letting in refugees is a separate issue. I only intend to question your reference here to political correctness, and the startlingly detached and intolerant sentiments from which it came.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 9:01:29 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

Wait what ? you think organized religion and it's down fall is a determinant to western society ?

I think you should reread what I wrote. Your response isn't clear, and it misrepresents what I said. I didn't say that both "organized religion" and "organized religion's downfall" has been detrimental to society.

I said only that organized religion's downfall has catalyzed Western society's decline.

Please read more carefully.

Maybe you should tell us what you think the fundamentals of western society is............

That's an absurdly big question. One that is impossible to answer here. You want a ten word answer to a question that requires a lifetime of study to recall. I can't give you a ten word answer.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:09:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 12:12:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Heaven forbid there exists a real cost associated with neglecting your military obligations in favor of providing bread for the European circus.... historically predictable.

That's the staggering irony of all of this.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:10:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 2:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

Where are you getting this from? Who exactly is afraid to remonstrate or condemn this attack on Paris or the cowardliness and inhumanity of the attackers? Who? Or is it your intention to dismiss attempts to not to implicate Muslims as people or Islam as a religion in perverse acts of terrorism?

Such opinions are tone-deaf, unnuanced, and utterly reprehensible. What separates you from far-right bigots who exploit every such tragedy to advance their hateful ideology?

Letting in refugees is a separate issue. I only intend to question your reference here to political correctness, and the startlingly detached and intolerant sentiments from which it came.

Ike, I don't give a sh!t about those kind of questions. When you bring a serious dialogue to the table, let me know. But if you're just going to act like a sanctimonious child, then do not expect me to take seriously what you have to say here.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 3:10:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

Where are you getting this from? Who exactly is afraid to remonstrate or condemn this attack on Paris or the cowardliness and inhumanity of the attackers? Who? Or is it your intention to dismiss attempts to not to implicate Muslims as people or Islam as a religion in perverse acts of terrorism?

Such opinions are tone-deaf, unnuanced, and utterly reprehensible. What separates you from far-right bigots who exploit every such tragedy to advance their hateful ideology?

Letting in refugees is a separate issue. I only intend to question your reference here to political correctness, and the startlingly detached and intolerant sentiments from which it came.

Ike, I don't give a sh!t about those kind of questions. When you bring a serious dialogue to the table, let me know. But if you're just going to act like a sanctimonious child, then do not expect me to take seriously what you have to say here.

I was asking for a clarification of what you mean when you say that responses to the Paris attack are "afraid to be politically incorrect." I just want to know whether you think a condemnation of Islam as a religion fundamentally incompatible with the values of western society would be a more fitting response. My assumption regarding your intentions likely preempted your response, but I really do want to know what exactly you mean, in your own words.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 3:19:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 3:10:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

Where are you getting this from? Who exactly is afraid to remonstrate or condemn this attack on Paris or the cowardliness and inhumanity of the attackers? Who? Or is it your intention to dismiss attempts to not to implicate Muslims as people or Islam as a religion in perverse acts of terrorism?

Such opinions are tone-deaf, unnuanced, and utterly reprehensible. What separates you from far-right bigots who exploit every such tragedy to advance their hateful ideology?

Letting in refugees is a separate issue. I only intend to question your reference here to political correctness, and the startlingly detached and intolerant sentiments from which it came.

Ike, I don't give a sh!t about those kind of questions. When you bring a serious dialogue to the table, let me know. But if you're just going to act like a sanctimonious child, then do not expect me to take seriously what you have to say here.

I was asking for a clarification of what you mean when you say that responses to the Paris attack are "afraid to be politically incorrect." I just want to know whether you think a condemnation of Islam as a religion fundamentally incompatible with the values of western society would be a more fitting response. My assumption regarding your intentions likely preempted your response, but I really do want to know what exactly you mean, in your own words.

If you read what I wrote, you will realize that I did not speak or reference "condemning Islam" generally, and in other posts not in this thread I specifically indicated that wholesale condemnation of Islam would not be an appropriate response to the Paris attacks.

I also tire of your efforts to portray me as something other than what I am. This is not the first time you've wrote something profoundly inapropriate, off topic, and purposefully incendiary to something I've written and it gets old.

I've been patient with you because (1) you're a teenager; (2) you still have a lot to learn; and (3) you more or less have grown up in a bubble. But the fact is that you're getting to a point where I'm just not going to respond in the future if you don't change your approach. Respond to that however you like. That's the way it is.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 3:38:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 3:31:20 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 3:19:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 3:10:29 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:13:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 2:25:38 AM, YYW wrote:
The great tragedy of modern Western society is that so many students are being taught, or have been taught to hate it, to apologize for it, to deride it, and to "move beyond" it. Specifically, with the emphasis we now find on mathematics and science, which need not come at the humanities' expense but have for political reasons come at the humanities' expense, and with religion's overall decline in America and Europe, with each new generation that comes of age we lose more of ourselves. The decline of organized religion, particularly, has catalyzed that decline.

What is different about ISIS's attack on Paris from, for example, Japan's attack on the United States, is that in the 1940s people had a sense of duty which arose from a common set of values: honor, justice, and truth. What was true about America in the 1940s was that when we were attacked by a foreign enemy, there was never any discussion of "not offending those Japanese persons who lived in the United States" which caused us to censor ourselves when we condemned evil for what it was.

But today, as ISIL has attacked our country's oldest ally, France, we are unwilling to call evil for what it is. We are cautious about insignificant concerns. We are reluctant to fight back. We hesitate to even acknowledge what was unquestionably the most heinous act of terrorism perpetrated against any Western country since 9/11. No honor. No justice. We can't even acknowledge the truth. Everyone is afraid of being politically incorrect.

Where are you getting this from? Who exactly is afraid to remonstrate or condemn this attack on Paris or the cowardliness and inhumanity of the attackers? Who? Or is it your intention to dismiss attempts to not to implicate Muslims as people or Islam as a religion in perverse acts of terrorism?

Such opinions are tone-deaf, unnuanced, and utterly reprehensible. What separates you from far-right bigots who exploit every such tragedy to advance their hateful ideology?

Letting in refugees is a separate issue. I only intend to question your reference here to political correctness, and the startlingly detached and intolerant sentiments from which it came.

Ike, I don't give a sh!t about those kind of questions. When you bring a serious dialogue to the table, let me know. But if you're just going to act like a sanctimonious child, then do not expect me to take seriously what you have to say here.

I was asking for a clarification of what you mean when you say that responses to the Paris attack are "afraid to be politically incorrect." I just want to know whether you think a condemnation of Islam as a religion fundamentally incompatible with the values of western society would be a more fitting response. My assumption regarding your intentions likely preempted your response, but I really do want to know what exactly you mean, in your own words.

If you read what I wrote, you will realize that I did not speak or reference "condemning Islam" generally, and in other posts not in this thread I specifically indicated that wholesale condemnation of Islam would not be an appropriate response to the Paris attacks.

So then what kind of politically incorrect speech are people afraid of using? It was my assumption that you were referring to the association of Islam with terrorism, and wanted a more forthright recognition that the two are interlinked and should be condemned in concert. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?

I did in fact read the entirety of what you wrote, but the answer to that question is still ambiguous.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 5:11:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would debate you on the motions that "Europe should deny entry to refugees," or "The U.S. should not offer asylum to refugees fleeing the Middle East." I would be Con on either.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 5:49:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 3:38:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
So then what kind of politically incorrect speech are people afraid of using? It was my assumption that you were referring to the association of Islam with terrorism, and wanted a more forthright recognition that the two are interlinked and should be condemned in concert. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?

People (and by "people" I mean Hollande, Cameron and Obama; the media writ large other than Fox News; and nearly every liberal on this site) are averse to using these words:

"Paris was attacked by Islamic terrorists."

When that is *exactly* what happened.

The words you hear them say instead are "violent extremists" or "radicals" not "Islamic violent extremists" or "Islamic radicals." Hillary Clinton was the only one who, during the debate, said something closer to the truth when she said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perverse interpretation of Islam." Martin O'Malley wouldn't even go that far, when he said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perversion of a major world religion'.

It's a subtle point, but one whose meaning is profound.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 5:53:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Actually I take back what I said about the media, to the extent that Jake Tapper on CNN just said "Islamic terrorists." That's an improvement.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:00:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 5:49:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 3:38:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
So then what kind of politically incorrect speech are people afraid of using? It was my assumption that you were referring to the association of Islam with terrorism, and wanted a more forthright recognition that the two are interlinked and should be condemned in concert. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?

People (and by "people" I mean Hollande, Cameron and Obama; the media writ large other than Fox News; and nearly every liberal on this site) are averse to using these words:

"Paris was attacked by Islamic terrorists."

When that is *exactly* what happened.

The words you hear them say instead are "violent extremists" or "radicals" not "Islamic violent extremists" or "Islamic radicals." Hillary Clinton was the only one who, during the debate, said something closer to the truth when she said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perverse interpretation of Islam." Martin O'Malley wouldn't even go that far, when he said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perversion of a major world religion'.

It's a subtle point, but one whose meaning is profound.

But how much is gained by using Islam in their rhetoric in terms of accuracy or clarity and how much is lost in terms of confusion or fomenting hatred toward Muslims among an undiscerning audience?

In any case, from what I've seen on CNN, pundits stress the distinction between Islamism and Islam. Only the latter is incompatible with western values, the most radical application of which produces terrorism. So is this really an issue? For better or worse, the word "Islam" is included in the discourse,.... what harm is there in the modest cautiousness some are displaying in preserving the innocence and dignity of the Muslims who are an integral part of our society?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:02:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 5:53:51 PM, YYW wrote:
Actually I take back what I said about the media, to the extent that Jake Tapper on CNN just said "Islamic terrorists." That's an improvement.

I have no issue with calling them "Islamic terrorists."

In another thread I was getting the "Not all muslims are...". It really makes no difference that all muslims are not radical when discussing the issue that Islam has a problem with radicals. The problem CAN be the religion without calling all muslims terrible people.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:02:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 5:49:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 3:38:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
So then what kind of politically incorrect speech are people afraid of using? It was my assumption that you were referring to the association of Islam with terrorism, and wanted a more forthright recognition that the two are interlinked and should be condemned in concert. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?

People (and by "people" I mean Hollande, Cameron and Obama; the media writ large other than Fox News; and nearly every liberal on this site) are averse to using these words:

"Paris was attacked by Islamic terrorists."

When that is *exactly* what happened.

The words you hear them say instead are "violent extremists" or "radicals" not "Islamic violent extremists" or "Islamic radicals." Hillary Clinton was the only one who, during the debate, said something closer to the truth when she said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perverse interpretation of Islam." Martin O'Malley wouldn't even go that far, when he said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perversion of a major world religion'.

It's a subtle point, but one whose meaning is profound.

But how much is gained by using Islam in their rhetoric in terms of accuracy or clarity and how much is lost in terms of confusion or fomenting hatred toward Muslims among an undiscerning audience?

In any case, from what I've seen on CNN, pundits stress the distinction between Islamism and Islam. Only the latter is incompatible with western values, the most radical application of which produces terrorism. So is this really an issue? For better or worse, the word "Islam" is included in the discourse,.... what harm is there in the modest cautiousness some are displaying in preserving the innocence and dignity of the Muslims who are an integral part of our society?

sorry, only the former* (Islamism)
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:24:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:02:08 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/15/2015 5:53:51 PM, YYW wrote:
Actually I take back what I said about the media, to the extent that Jake Tapper on CNN just said "Islamic terrorists." That's an improvement.

I have no issue with calling them "Islamic terrorists."

In another thread I was getting the "Not all muslims are...". It really makes no difference that all muslims are not radical when discussing the issue that Islam has a problem with radicals. The problem CAN be the religion without calling all muslims terrible people.

The problem isn't the religion, it is how some people pervert it. Christianity is also often perverted to justify violence. Really, it's not the religion--though, I think fading religion probably means that we have one less reason to engage in violence.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

I have no issue with calling them "Islamic terrorists."

In another thread I was getting the "Not all muslims are...". It really makes no difference that all muslims are not radical when discussing the issue that Islam has a problem with radicals. The problem CAN be the religion without calling all muslims terrible people.

The problem isn't the religion, it is how some people pervert it. Christianity is also often perverted to justify violence. Really, it's not the religion--though, I think fading religion probably means that we have one less reason to engage in violence.

I disagree. Who gets to declare with part of the religion is "right" over the other. Neither have that right, so they both are right. Christianity suffers the same issues, usually (at this point) with less dramatic results.

It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:35:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM, TBR wrote:
It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.

I think religion is more the excuse than the cause, but that can be debated later. It's certainly part of it, but I think it really is important to point out that "Islam" in itself is no more inherently dangerous than any other faith.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:36:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM, TBR wrote:

I have no issue with calling them "Islamic terrorists."

In another thread I was getting the "Not all muslims are...". It really makes no difference that all muslims are not radical when discussing the issue that Islam has a problem with radicals. The problem CAN be the religion without calling all muslims terrible people.

The problem isn't the religion, it is how some people pervert it. Christianity is also often perverted to justify violence. Really, it's not the religion--though, I think fading religion probably means that we have one less reason to engage in violence.

I disagree. Who gets to declare with part of the religion is "right" over the other. Neither have that right, so they both are right. Christianity suffers the same issues, usually (at this point) with less dramatic results.

It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.

For both you and Bsh, I will link this video with Same Harris again. Bsh, this is for you. It's about ideas. https://www.youtube.com...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:50:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:00:36 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/15/2015 5:49:48 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/15/2015 3:38:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
So then what kind of politically incorrect speech are people afraid of using? It was my assumption that you were referring to the association of Islam with terrorism, and wanted a more forthright recognition that the two are interlinked and should be condemned in concert. If that's not what you mean, then what do you mean?

People (and by "people" I mean Hollande, Cameron and Obama; the media writ large other than Fox News; and nearly every liberal on this site) are averse to using these words:

"Paris was attacked by Islamic terrorists."

When that is *exactly* what happened.

The words you hear them say instead are "violent extremists" or "radicals" not "Islamic violent extremists" or "Islamic radicals." Hillary Clinton was the only one who, during the debate, said something closer to the truth when she said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perverse interpretation of Islam." Martin O'Malley wouldn't even go that far, when he said something to the effect of 'radical extremists whose perversion of a major world religion'.

It's a subtle point, but one whose meaning is profound.

But how much is gained by using Islam in their rhetoric in terms of accuracy or clarity and how much is lost in terms of confusion or fomenting hatred toward Muslims among an undiscerning audience?

In any case, from what I've seen on CNN, pundits stress the distinction between Islamism and Islam. Only the latter is incompatible with western values, the most radical application of which produces terrorism. So is this really an issue? For better or worse, the word "Islam" is included in the discourse,.... what harm is there in the modest cautiousness some are displaying in preserving the innocence and dignity of the Muslims who are an integral part of our society?

Because the truth of the matter is that Islamic terrorism is a real thing and needs to be taken seriously. When you take the issue that Islam produces terrorists, that should change how governments formulate policies. You cannot separate the issue of the role Islamic terrorism plays with Muslim immigration. They cannot be addressed independently.
Disappearinghead
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 6:59:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:35:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM, TBR wrote:
It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.

I think religion is more the excuse than the cause, but that can be debated later. It's certainly part of it, but I think it really is important to point out that "Islam" in itself is no more inherently dangerous than any other faith.

I just cannot see how that can possibly be true. The Quran is full of verses extolling Muslims to kill infidels. At this point we get a load of weaselly words from so called moderate Muslims that these verses are taken out of context, that they refer to the time when Muhammed was attacking mecca or some such, but they are the very verses used by ISIS and the like to justify their actions. Even a cursory view of the world shows that on the whole other religions do not breed terrorists. If Islam was no more dangerous than any other faith then why are we not seeing the Islamic world condemning the actions of ISIS in Paris? Why don't they publicly state that these verses are incompatible with 21st century civilisations?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:00:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:35:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM, TBR wrote:
It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.

I think religion is more the excuse than the cause, but that can be debated later. It's certainly part of it, but I think it really is important to point out that "Islam" in itself is no more inherently dangerous than any other faith.

Is it certainly a part of the cause. Fred Phelps was a nasty f**k, but he had equal right to call himself "true christian" and anyone doing what I would call "good" in the world. And, as nasty as he was, at this moment in time, Islam is much more of a damaging force than Christianity.

These are not reasons to be mean to a Muslim, or expect all Muslims to be held account for the actions of others, but still are realities.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:02:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 7:00:16 PM, TBR wrote:
At 11/15/2015 6:35:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM, TBR wrote:
It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.

I think religion is more the excuse than the cause, but that can be debated later. It's certainly part of it, but I think it really is important to point out that "Islam" in itself is no more inherently dangerous than any other faith.

Islam is much more of a damaging force than Christianity.

Historically, this is not borne out. If you look at the totality of history, you'll find that major religions have all had violent phases, and that is impossible to definitively conclude that one is more damaging than another.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:05:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/15/2015 6:59:00 PM, Disappearinghead wrote:
At 11/15/2015 6:35:54 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/15/2015 6:30:23 PM, TBR wrote:
It is dismissive of a core part of the problem to completely dismiss the religion.

I think religion is more the excuse than the cause, but that can be debated later. It's certainly part of it, but I think it really is important to point out that "Islam" in itself is no more inherently dangerous than any other faith.

I just cannot see how that can possibly be true. The Quran is full of verses extolling Muslims to kill infidels.

And the Bible has examples of God wiping out whole cities and inflicting plagues against whole races of people. Historically, it's not true that Islam has been more or less violent than Christianity, when you look at the totality of their histories.

If Islam was no more dangerous than any other faith then why are we not seeing the Islamic world condemning the actions of ISIS in Paris?

We are. Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, both strongly condemned those attacks. Same with Jordan.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...