The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[crazy canuck]

All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.

[Syt]

Apparently Facebook blocked accounts of women named Isis.

Including this one, that you may remember form a previous social media campaign:

[Queequeg]

i guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. i'm not sure i can prove my argument, and i don't think you can prove your argument.

I can make my prima facie case very easily.  The Koran does call for violence.  Muslims do a shitload of terrorism.

The Koran has been around for over 1500 years.  Yet Islamic terrorism is a very recent phenomenon.

I'm not sure the Byzantines or Sassanids or Arab Jews would agree.

[lustindarkness]

Apparently Facebook blocked accounts of women named Isis.

Including this one, that you may remember form a previous social media campaign:

I would block her too, she looks dangerous (to my marriage).

[Valmy]

Pity about the boring job developing enterprise software.

[viper37]

I have never said all Muslims are violent.  That would be empirically ridiculous.  I have said violence is a key, unalterable component of the holy text, and that because of this sacred endorsement of violence--nay, the elevation of violence to a sacred duty-- Muslims have a higher proclivity for violence than members of other religions.

Sikhs have been violent too, committing terrorist act in the name of their ideology.
The IRA committed numerous terrorist acts in the UK, and they got support from the local Catholic clergy.  And it wasn't until the very recent events that a Pople officially condemned the acts.
There were numerous anti-abortion terror acts committed by Christians.
Christian Terrorism has a dedicated page on Wikipedia.
There's even a case about buddhism and violence

So, yes, it is unfair to say that Islam is more prone to violence than other religions.  You could say it is more prone to violence today, that might be accurate.  It's also the second most numerous religion in the world, and I think the majority of them lives in 3rd world or developping countries, more fertile grounds for extreme ideologies to emerge.

[Josquius]

I like that people started calling them Daesh, sounds like the Danish word 'das' which means old fashion toilets (hole in the ground style).

Good.
Never liked how willing everyone is to call them Islamic state. Seems like a bit of an acceptance of them

[Syt]

Germany has a new meme thanks to interior minister De Maiziere's press conference regarding the cancellation of the German friendly match. When pressed for details he said he couldn't say anything. "Part of the replies would unsettle the population."

[viper37]

i guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. i'm not sure i can prove my argument, and i don't think you can prove your argument.

I can make my prima facie case very easily.  The Koran does call for violence.  Muslims do a shitload of terrorism.

the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.

[viper37]

He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).

All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.

The problem with this is that you can make the same link with all religions.
Ergo, religions are dangerous and should be banned?

[Valmy]

He doesn't need to prove the causal connection - there is what's called a factual presumption (or the "talks like a duck and walks like a duck" principle).

All he needs to show is that Koran calls for violence and that those who commit violence are quoting Koran - this is sufficient in any court of law to create a presumption that there is a causal connection between the two. The burden of proof then shifts to the other side which claims that despite these facts, there is no connection between the two.

The problem with this is that you can make the same link with all religions.
Ergo, religions are dangerous and should be banned?

Same with the non-religious. Everybody should be banned.

Actually that would solve the problems

[Admiral Yi]

the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.
Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.

The New Testament most definitely does not call for violence.  Exactly the opposite.

[Berkut]

i guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. i'm not sure i can prove my argument, and i don't think you can prove your argument.

I can make my prima facie case very easily.  The Koran does call for violence.  Muslims do a shitload of terrorism.

the Bible calls for violence, Christians do a shitload of violence.

There is a fundamental difference in both kind and scale between the violence we see in the name of Islam today, and the violence we see in the name of Christianity.

Indeed, the "Christians do shitloads of violence" claim is kind of ridiculous, really. They do not, in fact, engage in violence in the name of their faith to any extent that can be compared to what is happening in the Islamic world.

Israel's more militant factions relies on their sacred texts to justify Israel's expulsion of the Palestinians.

And you would be perfectly reasonable to point out that those particular people are motivated by their religious faith, and that this is a serious problem for others in that area. Because they are, and because it is...

[viper37]

Same with the non-religious. Everybody should be banned.
Actually that would solve the problems

No, we atheists are the good guys.  We don't kill in the name of religion, so that's much less offensive.  Imagine the confort of the dead knowing they were killed for rational things like ethnicity, language, land or water instead of their beliefs?

[grumbler]

Sikhs have been violent too, committing terrorist act in the name of their ideology.

Wait.. what?  What Sikh "ideology" even permits terrorism, let alone inspiring it?