This topic is locked from further discussion.
when people do not stand up to islamic terror it expands.
if the majority wanted it gone forever or at least reduced in frequency how difficult would it really be to achieve?
it would be child's play to infiltrate, inform upon and eradicate the vast majority of radical enclaves.
if that is what the majority actually wants.
Link
The native Christians are taking a stand, but they're in so few numbers compared to the dominant Islamic countries that outweigh them 10:1.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Yes. Aggression is the main idea that both of your scenarios are dependent on, so the input is one of the most important aspects of those situations. This may appear as in agreement with Kant's categorical imperative, a deontological view.
I think it is clear that there are differences in results due to the variation in damage that such violence could cause. Therefore, the intent of the person committing the particular act of violence should be considered. It would not be fair to say that each scenario is equal in violence for regular cases like people being away from a cliff or traffic. It follows that the intent of the action is important. However, this is not all that matters as the outcomes are relevant, too. As the Biblical Scriptures say, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." People may intend well or wrong for others, but if they have no outcomes then their points are without being.
So you take the theory of the categorical imperative to put everyone on a cloud in which intent is as harmful as outcome. By exemplifying moral philosophies that do not exist outside of theory only serves to remove yourself from the world so that you can claim moral superiority for simply noticing the flaws of society.
It isn't a stance or an argument. It's submitting to "oh well, the world just sucks" and dressing it up as something intellectual.
Did the regressive liberals blame themselves yet?
It is not apologist to defend the idea that all aggressive violence is first and foremost wrong. This is not controversial for most people; it is the law of the land in most developed countries.
Nonetheless court systems have different responses to the two incidents because they aren't equal.
Then, we are in agreement.
So now we have your stance. "the idea that all aggressive violence is wrong"
To be more specific.
Muslim's killing 7000 non-Muslims while 100 Muslims are "possibly" subjected to violence provides a context in which Islamic culture is clearly more sadistic than that of civilized nations.
But you are able to float above the issue with your Kantian ethics that equate motive with outcome.
Even if we apply your theoretical paradox of morality, you have to suggest that 7000 Christians were accidentally murdered with the original intent being to simply give them a dirty look. You could also suggest that 100 failed assassination attempts on Muslims were failed and the result was coarse language, graffiti, or a punch to the face.
Even from your Garden of Eden you can't suggest that the a motive of a person resulting in murder is equal to the motive of someone spraying graffiti on a garage door.
@Johnny-n-Roger: Yes. Aggression is the main idea that both of your scenarios are dependent on, so the input is one of the most important aspects of those situations. This may appear as in agreement with Kant's categorical imperative, a deontological view.
I think it is clear that there are differences in results due to the variation in damage that such violence could cause. Therefore, the intent of the person committing the particular act of violence should be considered. It would not be fair to say that each scenario is equal in violence for regular cases like people being away from a cliff or traffic. It follows that the intent of the action is important. However, this is not all that matters as the outcomes are relevant, too. As the Biblical Scriptures say, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." People may intend well or wrong for others, but if they have no outcomes then their points are without being.
So you take the theory of the categorical imperative to put everyone on a cloud in which intent is as harmful as outcome. By exemplifying moral philosophies that do not exist outside of theory only serves to remove yourself from the world so that you can claim moral superiority for simply noticing the flaws of society.
It isn't a stance or an argument. It's submitting to "oh well, the world just sucks" and dressing it up as something intellectual.
I do not know where you got the idea that I am agreeing with Kantian logic when I already said that my view is a Biblical one. In fact, you even ignored it and said:
It isn't a stance or an argument.
It is not apologist to defend the idea that all aggressive violence is first and foremost wrong. This is not controversial for most people; it is the law of the land in most developed countries.
Nonetheless court systems have different responses to the two incidents because they aren't equal.
Then, we are in agreement.
So now we have your stance. "the idea that all aggressive violence is wrong"
To be more specific.
Muslim's killing 7000 non-Muslims while 100 Muslims are "possibly" subjected to violence provides a context in which Islamic culture is clearly more sadistic than that of civilized nations.
But you are able to float above the issue with your Kantian ethics that equate motive with outcome.
Even if we apply your theoretical paradox of morality, you have to suggest that 7000 Christians were accidentally murdered with the original intent being to simply give them a dirty look. You could also suggest that 100 failed assassination attempts on Muslims were failed and the result was coarse language, graffiti, or a punch to the face.
Even from your Garden of Eden you can't suggest that the a motive of a person resulting in murder is equal to the motive of someone spraying graffiti on a garage door.
It is apparent that since you began responding to me in this thread, you have sought my views on aggressive violence in order to support your notion that we should focus on harm done to more people rather than less. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." In my view, it is better to accept the facts then form arguments on that basis than grow from what is desired from cases. Harm, which I would say is violent aggression, is not an exception to this concept.
By exemplifying moral philosophies that do not exist outside of theory only serves to remove yourself from the world so that you can claim moral superiority for simply noticing the flaws of society.
thats sounds like an personal Insult, so it isnt any objectie Argument, its only there to give you satisfaction, it can not be transformed in an universal law ... and I dont know were the idea Comes from that philosophy exists outside the real world, maybe you confusing it with 'science'
By exemplifying moral philosophies that do not exist outside of theory only serves to remove yourself from the world so that you can claim moral superiority for simply noticing the flaws of society.
thats sounds like an personal Insult, so it isnt any objectie Argument, its only there to give you satisfaction, it can not be transformed in an universal law ... and I dont know were the idea Comes from that philosophy exists outside the real world, maybe you confusing it with 'science'
It's my personal opinion regarding the exculpating notion that your moral beliefs have you above the society of either culture. Do you not engage as a form of satisfaction? If it was of no value to respond to my post you would have no incentive to do so.
When you frame your stance as purely subjective, you cannot expect factual data in regards to your moral code. Morality is subjective.
There is no society that is governed by the categorical imperative. That is why it exists outside of the real world. It's a faith based moral system that can only exist when human nature is suppressed by external means. It's that same human nature that has you take my opinion as an insult rather than a disagreement. It's called "the ego".
It's that same human nature that has you take my opinion as an insult rather than a disagreement. It's called "the ego".
dont you see, that everythign you see in me, is something you do yourself (to me) ... like an sos you dont even notice yourself ... and I am saying this while taking the farest possible distance to you, okay ..
becasue you dont disagree with me, you agree but somehow you are under the Impression you are not and still argue (?)
I do not know where you got the idea that I am agreeing with Kantian logic when I already said that my view is a Biblical one. In fact, you even ignored it and said:
It is apparent that since you began responding to me in this thread, you have sought my views on aggressive violence in order to support your notion that we should focus on harm done to more people rather than less. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, "An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." In my view, it is better to accept the facts then form arguments on that basis than grow from what is desired from cases. Harm, which I would say is violent aggression, is not an exception to this concept.
Yes. Aggression is the main idea that both of your scenarios are dependent on, so the input is one of the most important aspects of those situations. This may appear as in agreement with Kant's categorical imperative, a deontological view.
I think it is clear that there are differences in results due to the variation in damage that such violence could cause. Therefore, the intent of the person committing the particular act of violence should be considered. It would not be fair to say that each scenario is equal in violence for regular cases like people being away from a cliff or traffic. It follows that the intent of the action is important. However, this is not all that matters as the outcomes are relevant, too. As the Biblical Scriptures say, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." People may intend well or wrong for others, but if they have no outcomes then their points are without being.
First, you said it yourself. Second, harm is not violent aggression.
If I say something and you take offense to it, you are harmed not by my words, but by your own reasoning. Even if we're speaking in terms of bodily harm:
Whether I do so because of their race, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or to be paid is not relevant. If I intend to harm someone the belief behind it changes nothing.
whats so copmlex about this ... you dont harm other people when you are able to see yourself in them ... its even mentioned in the bible ... pro tip: you really need a lot of real life expereince and practice do understand these philosophic points ... they are not born out of theory they are needed answers to the practical problems people facing everyday ... do you know that the ideas of descardes are a direct source for the bill of rights ... ?
violence and the law of the stronger is only an idea supported by weak and phony people, because people that are strong in the real world know that all these terms are meaningless in the end ...
if you look back onto a long live and years filled with activity, troubles, relations and break ups ... you may realise that everything you do is only a single step in a long row of steps and there will always be a nother step after this one, wich will everything now make look less importent and more trivial ... like when you draw a picture and after its finished you feel mo no joy in looking at it because it is already done and finished and everything you learned during the creation of this Images is only the foundation for the next Image you will create ...
whats so copmlex about this ... you dont harm other people when you are able to see yourself in them ... its even mentioned in the bible ... pro tip: you really need a lot of real life expereince and practice do understand these philosophic points ... they are not born out of theory they are needed answers to the practical problems people facing everyday ... do you know that the ideas of descardes are a direct source for the bill of rights ... ?
violence and the law of the stronger is only an idea supported by weak and phony people, because people that are strong in the real world know that all these terms are meaningless in the end ...
if you look back onto a long live and years filled with activity, troubles, relations and break ups ... you may realise that everything you do is only a single step in a long row of steps and there will always be a nother step after this one, wich will everything now make look less importent and more trivial ... like when you draw a picture and after its finished you feel mo no joy in looking at it because it is already done and finished and everything you learned during the creation of this Images is only the foundation for the next Image you will create ...
What's so ironic is that your "real life experience" rarely equates to anything real or life. Abstract thinking is neither. You cite "ideas" and "philosophies" without ever providing actual examples pertaining to the topic.
@Johnny-n-Roger: You are incorrect about the meaning of the phrase -this may appear as in agreement with- believe it or not. I wonder if you understood my post as I clearly said something to the contrary. I am unwilling to continue this conversation with you until you recognize that.
when people do not stand up to islamic terror it expands.
if the majority wanted it gone forever or at least reduced in frequency how difficult would it really be to achieve?
it would be child's play to infiltrate, inform upon and eradicate the vast majority of radical enclaves.
if that is what the majority actually wants.
It isn't though.. The United States supports Pakistan, a country with it's own religious extremists who has shown to be directly aiding and supporting the Taliban in the past.. The United States supports Saudi Arabia, another extremist country.. Great Britain and the United States has made it their mission in stomping down on secular movements within that region for the past 70 years because they were deemed as Cold War Communist threats.. Turkey is currently supporting ISIS because of cheap oil and their opposition to the Kurds..
Meanwhile our "allies", the Saudi's, are currently doing a campaign in Yemen which is as brutal as the Syrian government's campaign which was widely condemned.. As a nation and region, you can't claim to be against extremism while in fact being allied with some of the worse ones in the region..
@Johnny-n-Roger: You are incorrect about the meaning of the phrase -this may appear as in agreement with- believe it or not. I wonder if you understood my post as I clearly said something to the contrary. I am unwilling to continue this conversation with you until you recognize that.
So I concede that point entirely on the merit of my own misunderstanding and offer an apology. I also appreciate you denying a certain individual the ability to "hijack the thread".
What remains is my disagreement with your stance regarding "intent" taking precedence over "outcome" to which I'm willing to engage with the following questions as they pertain to this stance in regards to the information that you had provided:
One of the two would have to be true in order for the intent of such actions to be morally equivalent. The variation or extent of the outcome is, in most cases, a product of the intent of the individual.
--
This is not general rule, however. Two examples:
Motive A - I am annoyed that someone is standing in the area in which I intend to travel. A temporary lapse in self-control ensues. There are 2 outcomes.
Motive B - An individual in front of me has previously disrespected me. I intend to kill the individual because I dislike them. There are 2 outcomes.
To a witness, the discernible difference is the outcomes. The motives are unknown.
My outcome-based morality system is flawed, as I can have a lapse of judgement be considered Murder, while the intent to take the life of another be considered Simple Battery.
How does your motive over outcome moral system assess these two situations? While we can agree that both are wrong, where does a temporary lapse of self-control fall on a moral spectrum?
@Johnny-n-Roger: I think that there is a misunderstanding that remains. My view, to clarify, is that motives are important as are outcomes rather than one or the other. Defining the good or bad of an action by either alone seems to me like legalism in that it is defining all aspects of life by a book of law in order to justify actions. I think that the most important way to determine well being is similar to what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said. MLK, Jr. said, "True peace is not merely the absence of tension but the presence of justice." I would say that justice is promotion of the good in the world, grace and peace. This is more related to Pauline theology of the Creator treating believers in the Christ as righteous despite being sinners more than the Classical Greek term in securing justice for the righteous by punishing the wicked. Essentially, I think that people with the right lifestyle-thought and action-are just and should be treated as such. Therefore, if people are to be considered unjust, I would say so for having ill lifestyles.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment