The Paris Attack Debate Thread

[dps]

I have some problem agreeing with this position.  Almost any belief can motivate some people to violence.

For example, that John Brown used terrorist tactics doesn't reflect poorly on abolitionism, IMO.  (ACW hijack!)

I think there's a difference between a cause (such as abolitionism, independence, civil rights, etc) and a belief system such as a religion.  There will always be proponents of violence to achieve virtually any cause, but it doesn't stem organically from the cause itself.

Hmm.  I see your point.  Not entirely convinced, though, since arguably people's advocacy of any given cause does usually stem from their belief systems (which may or may not be religious in nature). 

[crazy canuck]

I don't know how valid it is to compare Canadian Muslim anecdotes to European ones. In both America and Canada the Muslim populations are pretty well integrated, although I do have to say Canada has a lot of stupid law relating to religion (faith-based tribunals, their imbecilic Human Rights Commissions calling in people for blasting radical Imams etc.) But in Europe they don't tend to have well integrated Muslims, and a lot of that is also probably because America and Canada get a "better class of Muslim." A lot of American Muslims didn't come here as refugees, for example, but as skilled workers or the family's of such. Then a lot of American Muslims also came from earlier refugee crises and are now in 2nd or 3rd generation status, and those individuals always tend to be better assimilated.

I am beginning to think you and Viper get your Canadian news from the same source.

Anecdotal I know, but every Muslim family I know came here as refugees.  The parents - the actual refugees are not what you portray and certainly their kids - first generation - are Canadians through and through.

[Razgovory]

As opposed to say any system of ideas.  Should Yi have to apologize to the world every time someone adhering to Austrian economics runs a scam, or kills people through negligence?  If someone believed the same thing as Yi (or at least thought they did), and did a bad thing because of those beliefs does this reflect poorly on Yi?

I would say yes.  If I espouse a belief system that breeds a certain level of violence, then I think that belief system is problematic.

I think that is the dilemna confronting good Muslims, who are trying to raise their children to be good Muslims as well.

Instead of violence what about negligence or risk taking?  Say someone who adheres to economic theories you do avoided doing government mandated safety inspections and poisoned a customer or killed an employee?

[Admiral Yi]

Instead of violence what about negligence or risk taking?  Say someone who adheres to economic theories you do avoided doing government mandated safety inspections and poisoned a customer or killed an employee?

Then I would think you're trying to steer the discussion in a silly and uninteresting direction.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I am beginning to think you and Viper get your Canadian news from the same source.

Anecdotal I know, but every Muslim family I know came here as refugees.  The parents - the actual refugees are not what you portray and certainly their kids - first generation - are Canadians through and through.

If you parse the actual quote, look at where I never say anything about the refugee status of Canadian Muslims, because I don't know. I said "A lot of American Muslims don't come here as refugees." Most of the ones I've had direct contact with at work are IT guys/gals who are from Pakistan and India.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Most of the Muslims I know personally were refugees - particularly, from Iran. Mind you they were fleeing because of the Ayatollahs, and they were pretty 'upper class' well-educated urbanites. 

I have no idea what you are taking about 'faith-based tribunals'.  Care to explain?

Many years ago you and I once had a massive argument about them. So I suspect you may know what I'm talking about, but are just playing a game because you don't like the term "faith based tribunals", but I'm referring to faith-based arbitrators under the 1991 Arbitration Act involving Jewish, Catholic and Native American cultural/religious norms being used to decide civil matters.

[viper37]

The problem is that even those Muslims who do not support terrorism are pretty creepy and medieval.

I dunno.  The muslims that I actually know are all pretty cool.   

Granted of course they're muslim-Canadians, but it still would seem to counter your point.

most of them are ok.  With regards to other Québécois, there's no significant differences outside of their religious zeal.  But we do have a problem on how we integrate the first generation, those that studied abroad.  But it ain't exclusive to arabs/muslims, all foreigners are treated like shit for that.  Many diplomas are not recognized, so you have many doctors and engineers driving a taxi.

[crazy canuck]

I am beginning to think you and Viper get your Canadian news from the same source.

Anecdotal I know, but every Muslim family I know came here as refugees.  The parents - the actual refugees are not what you portray and certainly their kids - first generation - are Canadians through and through.

If you parse the actual quote, look at where I never say anything about the refugee status of Canadian Muslims, because I don't know. I said "A lot of American Muslims don't come here as refugees." Most of the ones I've had direct contact with at work are IT guys/gals who are from Pakistan and India.

It was this bit that my comment was directed to:

although I do have to say Canada has a lot of stupid law relating to religion (faith-based tribunals, their imbecilic Human Rights Commissions calling in people for blasting radical Imams etc.)

I have no idea what you are talking about but the source seems consistent with Viper's view of the world.

[OttoVonBismarck]

As I said above, the faith based arbitration allowed under the 1991 Arbitration Act.

[Razgovory]

Instead of violence what about negligence or risk taking?  Say someone who adheres to economic theories you do avoided doing government mandated safety inspections and poisoned a customer or killed an employee?

Then I would think you're trying to steer the discussion in a silly and uninteresting direction.

Oh it's quite interesting.  Can you find fault in a philosophy that if acted on has predictable negative outcome? What if someone warp those ideas beyond what you believe. Is that philosophy still deficient?  Is it fair to oppose say Communism because economic disaster is a predictable outcome from attempting to implement it?

[Admiral Yi]

Oh it's quite interesting.

Find someone who agrees with you and you have all the makings of the discussion.

[jimmy olsen]

Matthew 10:34: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35"For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW;..."

And people say there's no proof that God exists.

[Berkut]

I have some problem agreeing with this position.  Almost any belief can motivate some people to violence.

For example, that John Brown used terrorist tactics doesn't reflect poorly on abolitionism, IMO.  (ACW hijack!)

I think there's a difference between a cause (such as abolitionism, independence, civil rights, etc) and a belief system such as a religion.  There will always be proponents of violence to achieve virtually any cause, but it doesn't stem organically from the cause itself.

I think the more important thing to note is that John Brown was a rather singular exception.

If there were hundreds of John Brown attacks happening every year, killing thousands of people, all of whom claimed they were motivated by their desire to free slaves, then in fact it would not be unreasonable to note that this abolition thing seems to drive a lot of violence.

Since that didn't happen, the point is kind of moot.

[mongers]

In response IS have executed two hostages, Norwegian and Chinese, photos apparently in their glossy 'in-house' magazine. 

[viper37]

I have some problem agreeing with this position.  Almost any belief can motivate some people to violence.

For example, that John Brown used terrorist tactics doesn't reflect poorly on abolitionism, IMO.  (ACW hijack!)

I think there's a difference between a cause (such as abolitionism, independence, civil rights, etc) and a belief system such as a religion.  There will always be proponents of violence to achieve virtually any cause, but it doesn't stem organically from the cause itself.

I think the more important thing to note is that John Brown was a rather singular exception.

If there were hundreds of John Brown attacks happening every year, killing thousands of people, all of whom claimed they were motivated by their desire to free slaves, then in fact it would not be unreasonable to note that this abolition thing seems to drive a lot of violence.

Since that didn't happen, the point is kind of moot.

well. there was a war with some 3/4 of a million victims.  Or maybe it was a war about States rights?
And there were slave rebellion elsewhere.