Printable View
Indeed. However, saying that a certain religion is aggressive/intolerant/some other negative adjective, is nowadays been frowned upon my misguided people who think that "tolerance" is the equivalent of "accept everything".Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Yeah sure. Let people indoctrinate their children to hate people who hold different views. It's none of our business. After all, we should be "tolerant".Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
very much true...Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Yeah these are the ones, the 'tolerant leftists', decency fundi's they aren't all that tolerant they are vicious against anything that isn't 100% ok, sectists bah. And you can't reason with them, they are morally superior bastaQuote:
Originally Posted by Sonic
It's not like its just leftists that are guilty of it, the standard centre-right parties seem to be pretty much the same. But then the far-right go too far in the other direction. Bah!
For the far Right it is an excuse to reinforce their prejudices rather than anything else, and as such poison the whole discussion. In a similar way I find it such a shame that the English flag has been usurped by association with thugs.
~:smoking:
That is true, but the right isn't holding onto a flawed thought, these people preaching multi don't even live there, I expect people who do to have an opinion on itQuote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
"Tolerance" has nothing to do with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
I do not believe that we will get rid of nazism by banning it. I see no reason why we would get rid of extreme religion by banning it.
Our stance is morally superior to this. It's about bloody time we actually start believing that. Sanity will never lose a debate to insanity unless sanity simply concedes.
So, what do you propose to do when confronted with such issues?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nothing at all? Ignore it completely?
I'd say educate them, but well, ehm, they prefer to educate themselves and, morally superior as we are, we must allow them to have their children learn what they think their children have to learn, and not intervene, so :shrug:
Just why on earth do you think I want to "do nothing"...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Where did you get that from my post?
Well, if you're not going to do nothing, then what will you do against this?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I was under the impression that the "not my bloody business" meant "let them, if that's what they want, not my problem" in a laissez-faire, laissez-passer kinda way :shrug:
Sanity often looses a debate as the world isn't sane!
What was sane about the Great Leap Forward? Was it an accident waiting to happen? Yes it was - but it still happened. And it by no means stopped the Cambodians undertaking a similar exercise with even worse results (as a percentage of the population).
Surely you've heard it said that it is easier to defend a position that is "known" to be true than argue against it? If you are merely agreeing with current wisdom that fits into a 20 second soundbyte. If you want to argue against it with a reasoned argument... you can't. There's no time and if you try the punchy 20 second job you often sound like a lunatic.
In times of stress or disaster people want certainties. Generally science can't offer these, merely probabilities. People also want scape goats to exonerate themselves and someone else to take their anger out on. Rationality often fails on both accounts, but extremists often supply both in droves.
If you think that all people are open minded and inquisitive for the truth you'll be severely let down by reality.
~:smoking:
So when I mention "debate" you somehow think I'm talking about "being silent"? Or is that just your prejudice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
Anyway....
Debate and education is the way forward. We simply need a little faith in our own moral stance, and the fact that it is far superior to barbarism. Democracy, rationality and logic go hand in hand.
I'll give you an example: the neo-nazi's used to have quite an influence here where I live. Even though the police have been after them from day one, they've just grown bigger and bigger. They are now, however, all but gone. When did that happen? When they ran in the election. A couple of weeks of actual debate, and they disintegrated. The leaders quit and the organization is no more. The conclusion I make of this is that forcing something into the underground doesn't work at all, while public debate kills it almost overnight.
But the lack of faith people have in our culture, democracy and morals disappoints me. And it's pathetic to see that the ones who talk most about our moral superiority are the ones with the lesat faith in it, and whom I suspect to be closet authoritarians.
Allright then.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Communism was illegal in the Russian Empire, and yet they managed to take power and murder millions.
Hitler was jailed.
Extreme Islam was illegal in Iran and they still manged to take power.
Castro's revolution was illegal.
Cambodias communism was illegal.
I could go on and on. Every single undemocratic force which has taken power by force has been illegal. Why on earth do people still believe that what hasn't worked 928374 times in a row will somehow magically work the 928375th time...?
To look a population studies you don't just draw conclusions from where it happened to work, you look at the whole population and see the number of places where it didn't, and ideally compare places where take-overs were done within the systems.
Oh, Hitler was elected to power legally.
And look at Africa. The number of leaders who have extended their terms in office or just removed the opposition parties show that usurping power from within democracies is alive and well.
Slavery in Europe / USA was got rid of as it was banned
The Tugee cult was destroyed as it was banned and hunted out of existence.
Pirates were removed from the sea not by debate, but by blowing them out of the water (we're trying the debate method at the moment - and it isn't working[!])
I could go on too.
It's easy to see where things haven't worked, a lot harder to know when they have and hence nothing happened.
~:smoking:
There are several schools of Jurisprudence (fiqh) in Sunni Islam. Most Imams adhering to the relatively relaxed Hanafi' school will most likely not say that gays should be murdered and thieves should have their hands cut off. A Shafi'i Imam would propose legal activity right now. Whether or not that constitutes cutting hands off or throwing people of buildings is another matter.
I would like to add to this that we often mistake the Wahhabis as speaking for all of (Sunni) Islam, while in fact, they represent a very small margin of a minority (the salafiyya). All Wahhabis are Salafis, but not all Salafis are Wahhabis. Terror cells currently operating in Europe and the United States are affiliated more with the Wahabbist interpretation of the Qur'an, while a large majority of Muslims are not Salafis or Wahhabis. It might be that a large group of young Muslims of foreign descent born in Europe are caught inbetween a rock and a hard place, or so they'd percieve. Looking for guidance, they look towards religion, and an interpretation of religion that constitutes behaviour not in accordance with European law.
What I'm trying to say here is that to say that they are Muslims is not incorrect, but we should take care in what differentiates them and other Muslims. If I were a peaceful Muslim and living in Europe right now, I have no idea how I'd feel. On one hand, the European society regards you with growing distrust because of your perceivedly extremist religion, and the religious community regards you with distrust because of your perceivedly weak faith.
And with the outright silly book called "The Invisible Ayatollah" that has recently come out in the Netherlands about the influence of extremist Muslim preachers in the Netherlands and the err, "leftist church" that has enabled them. Apparently, the muslim who wrote the book forgot that "Ayatollah" is a strictly Shi'ite term. The ignorance of some people keeps amazing me.
No, the reason it is (or should be!) frowned upon is because the labeling of an entire religion -and by association the entire range of its adherents- demonstrates ignorance of its different interpretations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
As Hax has helpfully outlined, there is no single monolithic interpretation of Islam -and there is a real multitude of views within it. As ever, it's the bad bits that get picked up and denounced -which I think is right to do, but it is absolutely wrong to surmise that the whole of Islam is thus.
.... :no:
pride is the biggest sin... and sometimes, you can be proud over a futile "morally superrior" philloshopy, that in turns, will render you helpless when that was too late...
Our principles made us great. It's only a few centuries since France couldn't even feed its own people, just a couple of years before she almost conquered all of europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Democracy and liberty has made us great. Dictatorships have given us crop failures in Russia. To turn our backs on what has made us great will only destroy us.
Yeah I think there is a tendency to see democracies as weak in the face of external threats, but in reality there's a lot of studies that suggest being a democracy might improve how a state performs in war etc.
Indeed!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
-Who won the American revolution? The democracy.
-Who won WW1? The democracies.
-Who won WW2? The democracies.
-Who won the cold war? The democracies.
-Who's winning the wars in the middle east? The democracy.
-Who won both gulf wars? The democracy(ies).
We only have WW2 etc to go on but the thinking is a democray is usually not as well prepared for industrial scale warfare as say fascism or communism in early stages. The problem for autocrats is people who dissent are ignored or worse so you end up with no one saying "Mein Furher an invasion of the Soviet Union will fail" everyone ends up a yesman.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Also intelligence agencies of autocratic regimes are better at internal security than at disrupting the enemy a crucial part of warfare today, also members of autocratic governments waste resources watching each other to ensure there quids in with the leader and as a result not properly watching there enemy.
The problem isn't so much the yes men, the problem is a little more complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
In a dictatorship, when you think of a great plan, you do it.
In a democracy, when you think of a great plan, some other guy will say "no that plan suck monkey testicles!". This reaction will make you look over your plan once more, working a little more on it, making it a little better.
following your hitler example:
Hitler thought of a great invasion plan of the Soviet Union, and so he did.
If he had been living in a democracy, somebody would've pointed out how retarded that plan was, and Hitler would've been forced to look at it again, thus noticing the glaring logistic errors it contained, fixed it and rid the world of smelly commies once and for all!'
Compare the differences in planning of d-day with operation barbarossa, and note which one was succesful....
I agree it is more complex than just having yesmen but it is a valid observation of these governments.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
My bit on intelligence stands up I would say spying in Nazi Germany was a basically useless for warfare and only used to watch the people and to watch the other members of the government.
The authoritarian Stalin made a war-winning decision(moving troops from Siberia to Stalingrad) based on the intelligence(that the Japanese would attack the US, not Siberia) he recieved from his spy in the Japanese court.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
There is always an exception to every rule and he ignored spies who told him Nazi Germany was about to invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Anyway it doesnt matter the point is if there is to be a war you chances of winning go up if your democratic which we both agree on.
Yes, but remember that it's 00:18 here and I'm dilusional from writing a paper for the last way-too-many-hours.....Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
IMO the main basis for the democratic success in wars idea is the fact they are meritocratic. Dictators tend to mess up their militaries either through nepotism, or by deliberately crippling them to reduce the threat of a coup by dividing them into different factions (often ethnic based, eg Syria in the 60's), or by completely confusing the chain of command so nobody knows who takes orders from who (eg Argentinian junta). Better just to have a democratic system where the military is accountable to the people, and is given the necessary freedom to do its job properly.
Heh, I often have similar problems writing on these boards.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The armies of the 20th Centuary were democratic. Is this a long term trend or a blip?
New Model Army: run by a dictator, but efficient
Napoleon: An autocratic Emperor, but won battles
Roman Empire: worked under both a republic and an Emperor; Byzantine empire was there for hundreds more years
Japanese armies: under a Monarchy. Yes, they lost WW2, but they won most things before that and I don't think being a democracy suddenly makes one beat America.
Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Peter the Great...
Vietnamese: Communist
Cambodian: Communist
Red Army (post revolution): Communist
So, loads of autocratic regimes have been whipping all foes before them for hundreds of years.
~:smoking:
Democracy is better at peace, democratic countries usually don't go to war with other democratic countries
@Hax, book is meant for the layman
Rather a broad brush. America has been in "kinetic situations" for years now, tirelesly helping other countries by "sending the Marines". Britain isn't much better on that score.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
~:smoking: