The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[LaCroix]

...and here we arrive at the crux of the matter. It is all the fault of the West, of course.

do you really think imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today? this is a fact, and i figured most people here knew this...

[frunk]

do you really think imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today? this is a fact, and i figured most people here knew this...

Many of these places had brutal or little to no governments before imperialism, and many of the horrible laws being complained about were commonplace back then.  Imperialism may not have helped them, but it is ridiculous to say that without imperialism they would be enlightened and peaceful places.

[DGuller]

Okay, just for you, I'm going to reveal the big secret.  I don't believe in God.  Well not completely.  I want to, but I find it extremely difficult.  When I argue about religion I'm arguing with myself just as much as any of you.  The idea that we won't be obliterated, that there are objective rules even if they are strict and strange, the idea our choices have meaning, that we are part of something, I want to believe this.  But I am beset by doubt. I doubt everything.  I doubt myself, I doubt God, I doubt that I'm even the same person in the morning as I was in the evening.  There are times I think to myself if there is a God, would I really want to meet it?  Doing anything for eternity is also terrifying.  And there in lies the source of madness.  The doubt and fear that has crushed me for 20 years.  You talk to me of Cognitive Dissonance, but I know first hand the cognitive dissonance  of those who reject religion.  They must have it or they would be all crazy.  You can't just wake every morning and look at the waiting void, that at any time you go from here to irreversibly destroyed.  You have to drive it to the back of your mind, something I can't do.  The superiority of a philosophy that requires you don't examine it too carefully without becoming depressed seems pretty flawed.

I hate the doubt, but I also dislike Atheism.  The smug elitism, the pretentiousness, when some arrogant clod lectures me on Darwinism and gets it fundamentally wrong.  When some idiot says that smart religious people have to be lying because atheist is what smart people are.  I dislike the illiberalism of it, I dislike when some pompous atheist fail to understand not only where religious ideas come from but the history of their own ideas.  When an Atheist values the work of Charles Darwin not for it's scientific value but as a fetish to drive away religion.  When they cherry pick religious scripture, quote antiquated sociological theories, or can't internalize basic facts like when the fucking Iron age is.

So yeah, I have a aversion to Atheism.  When some smug asshole comes to me talking about "Mind viruses" or other such nonsense, I want to shove their face into the Abyss and say, "Look!  Look at the emptiness of your future!  Look at the futility!  Look how meaningless all your cleverness is!  I want you to see how the smartest dead man on earth is equal to a dead cockroach.  I want you to keep it in the front of your mind for weeks, months with no reprieve. I want you to understand what you say, I want it always be there ready to come unbidden into your mind, I want it to drag on you for the rest of your life and no amount of drugs or distraction or cognitive dissonance will make it go away.".

Okay, I may have been wrong, maybe you in particular do not need to look any more inward.

[LaCroix]

Many of these places had brutal or little to no governments before imperialism, and many of the horrible laws being complained about were commonplace back then.  Imperialism may not have helped them, but it is ridiculous to say that without imperialism they would be enlightened and peaceful places.

you're going to have to be more specific on which of these "places had brutal or little to no governments." i'm sure some of these green countries did have "little to no government" pre-1800s, just like their non-islamic neighbors. others, however, had governments that didn't really differ. and, pre-imperialism era... tons of christian nations had incredibly brutal governments compared to today.

but it is ridiculous to say that without imperialism they would be enlightened and peaceful places.

without imperialism, they'd have had an opportunity to develop through normal means. they didn't have that opportunity, however, and now they're essentially being criticized for it. or at least, islam is, i guess.

[Berkut]

...and here we arrive at the crux of the matter. It is all the fault of the West, of course.

do you really think imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today?

Yes, clearly that must be what I think. If I reject that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West, then of course I must think that "imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today:.

Because that is clearly the only other possible option, Mr. Chomsky.

[LaCroix]

Yes, clearly that must be what I think. If I reject that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West, then of course I must think that "imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today:.

Because that is clearly the only other possible option, Mr. Chomsky.

how else could i possibly read your very cryptic response to my post and conclude anything other than "he doesn't think imperialism stunted islamic nations' growth?" the sarcasm is uncalled for in this case because any misunderstanding on my part was entirely your fault

[Berkut]

Yes, clearly that must be what I think. If I reject that Islamic terrorism is the fault of the West, then of course I must think that "imperialism had little consequence on how the world exists today:.

Because that is clearly the only other possible option, Mr. Chomsky.

how else could i possibly read your very cryptic response to my post and conclude anything other than "he doesn't think imperialism stunted islamic nations' growth?" the sarcasm is uncalled for in this case because any misunderstanding on my part was entirely your fault

Of course it was my fault, just like Islamic terrorism is not the fault of the Islamic terrorists.

I take complete responsibility for your use of obvious logical fallacies. Your actions are clearly not under your control, but rather under my control.

Just like suicide bombers are not under their own control, but rather the control of "imperialists".

[Admiral Yi]

because culture shapes religion, not the other way around.

When Islam conquered places like Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Syria, how did the existing cultures of those places shape Islam?

islam differs from christianity because, by and large, islamic nations suffered under imperialism for a long time, which has kept the islamic nations pretty backwater.

Leaving aside the dubious claim that imperialism retarded organic cultural progress, what is the statue of limitations on imperialism?

[frunk]

you're going to have to be more specific on which of these "places had brutal or little to no governments." i'm sure some of these green countries did have "little to no government" pre-1800s, just like their non-islamic neighbors. others, however, had governments that didn't really differ. and, pre-imperialism era... tons of christian nations had incredibly brutal governments compared to today.

without imperialism, they'd have had an opportunity to develop through normal means. they didn't have that opportunity, however, and now they're essentially being criticized for it. or at least, islam is, i guess.

I have no idea what this map means, but it is full of pretty colors.  I don't suppose you'd like to share what the coding indicates.  Is Russia the victim of Imperialism?  I'm also having a hard time correlating the level of Imperialism with the level of brutality of the current regime.  India got screwed over harder by Imperialism than most countries but is in much better shape than many others.  Western Imperialism in the Middle East was for only a relatively short period compared to India, parts of Asia and Africa and yet the regimes are among the worst in the world.  How does that correlate?  Yes, many Christian nations had brutal governments in the past but now they don't, as with many other non-Christian nations whether they suffered under Imperialism or not.  That's my point.

[LaCroix]

Of course it was my fault, just like Islamic terrorism is not the fault of the Islamic terrorists.

I take complete responsibility for your use of obvious logical fallacies. Your actions are clearly not under your control, but rather under my control.

Just like suicide bombers are not under their own control, but rather the control of "imperialists".

i don't think the backhanded comments are necessary, but it's become clear you really have no interest in continuing this discussion with me. half the time you ignore my posts, and the other times you're throwing in some jab. (edit) and, apparently, taking something i've never argued and using it to mock me in other threads...?

When Islam conquered places like Egypt, North Africa, Persia, and Syria, how did the existing cultures of those places shape Islam?

Leaving aside the dubious claim that imperialism retarded organic cultural progress, what is the statue of limitations on imperialism?

(1) that's more of a question for spellus. (2) "islam" didn't conquer those places. people carrying banners of islam invaded and took over. whatever those invaders introduced to those regions... that's what shaped the culture there. but, usually invaders who settle in get shaped by local culture after awhile and some mix occurs. again, spellus or someone else can give you a better answer.

i dunno, 1000 years?

[Martinus]

Really, the one can't have a meaningful life, a morality system without religion?

Define "meaningful".

You can choose to give your live meaning.

That's not really a definition, it's still subjective, and it is questionable if you even can do this.  From a materialist stand point the concept of "choose" may be itself meaningless.  You don't really "want" to do thing things you "love" because "want" and "love" may not have any meaning.  These words may simply be inaccurate folk descriptions of chemical reactions.  We lack the words to properly describe what is happening just as the Aztecs lacked the vocabulary to describe quantum physics.  So instead of saying something like "I give my life meaning through charity" it is perhaps more accurately understood as, "I continually engage in "w" activity because it triggers x, y, and z brain activities."  This might strike you as absurd, but seems like the logical end point of materialism.

We are not getting into a definitive debate on what gives life meaning and what doesn't, are we? Because if we do, that's a bit of a tall order, given that thousands of philosophers, theologists and artists who have been trying to do it from the dawn of civilization failed to do so so far. 

[LaCroix]

I have no idea what this map means, but it is full of pretty colors.  I don't suppose you'd like to share what the coding indicates.  Is Russia the victim of Imperialism?  I'm also having a hard time correlating the level of Imperialism with the level of brutality of the current regime.  India got screwed over harder by Imperialism than most countries but is in much better shape than many others.  Western Imperialism in the Middle East was for only a relatively short period compared to India, parts of Asia and Africa and yet the regimes are among the worst in the world.  How does that correlate?  Yes, many Christian nations had brutal governments in the past but now they don't, as with many other non-Christian nations whether they suffered under Imperialism or not.  That's my point.

green = islam. blue = christianity. i think the purple in africa = half muslim, half christian.

yeah, some countries have managed to get their shit together, and some haven't. you'll have to look at each nation and analyze why. for some, maybe a charismatic warlord took over in post-colonialism and wrecked everything. for others, maybe a colonial state had sufficient infrastructure so it could stay on its feat.

western imperialism wasn't the only imperialism that happened in the middle east. plus, a large number of third world countries that exist today have borders that were shaped during colonialism/afterward. this causes a lot of problems that further mucked things up immediately after. how does it correlate? again, look at the countries and figure out why. "islam did it" seems like a poor excuse to not look into what happened throughout those areas and figure out a real cause

and some christian and non-christian nations are still nuts

[Martinus]

What do we do with that?

I don't know.  No response that I can think of is a pleasant one.  But that isn't a reason to pretend something isn't true.

Yeah, only because there is no good answer it does not mean we should ignore the facts. And again, this is the problem of the left - because left doesn't believe there is a good solution, they are refusing to acknowledge that there even is a problem. And this is what is driving more and more voters into the arms of the extreme right.

[Martinus]

And I posted earlier Zizek's article - which, broadly, is what we should do about it.

[Admiral Yi]

(1) that's more of a question for spellus. (2) "islam" didn't conquer those places. people carrying banners of islam invaded and took over. whatever those invaders introduced to those regions... that's what shaped the culture there. but, usually invaders who settle in get shaped by local culture after awhile and some mix occurs. again, spellus or someone else can give you a better answer.

i dunno, 1000 years?

What those invaders introduced to those regions was Islam.