GENIUS FORUMS

Ryan Rudolph wrote:In my opinion, fundamentalism such as radical islam...

The landscape is a bit more complex that that. Fundamentalism within the mainstream religion is basically a strong conservative force with a natural preference to dialog, peace and good behavior based on a seriously maintained moral code. Militant networks and philosophies like Al Qaida are infused with a revolutionary, international outlook. This is really alien to traditional Islamic culture and only arises in war zones, tribal conflicts and other places where foreign brutal (Western) intelligence agencies have been mingling for too long, often creating extremely unnatural circumstances.

Also, there's nothing radical about the desire to call for what one sees as wise and good to be established as system of law, when the majority desires it so. The West had in the last hundred years way more dangerous and radical ideas and acted upon them than the Muslim world ever had dreamed of.

Just because ones own culture or religion starts to look like crap and falls apart by the seams, doesn't have to mean the other culture or religion is to be feared. It's better to rely on ones own strength, create strong, wise values that everyone will want to embrace, create a vibrant culture of ideas and insights that puts any dumbed-down version of religion that tries to appeal to our senses to shame.

And if you cannot do that, give it up already. You deserve it be invaded by anything that does have a clue.

Diebert,

Just because ones own culture or religion starts to look like crap and falls apart by the seams, doesn't have to mean the other culture or religion is to be feared. It's better to rely on ones own strength, create strong, wise values that everyone will want to embrace, create a vibrant culture of ideas and insights that puts any dumbed-down version of religion that tries to appeal to our senses to shame.

My point Diebert is that extreme Christianity isn't as much of a threat to world stability as Extreme Islam. As of late, Radically thinking Christians haven't bombed Europeans subway systems, or city streets. They haven't stabbed film makers to death for criticizing their prophet. They haven't threatened violence when professors make funny cartoons of their prophets. Extreme Christians generally do not murder lovers for eloping. They haven't demanded that western law systems switch over to a backwards thinking sharia law, which moral codes are back in the stones age, with the old testament somewhere. They haven't bombed schools, murdering women and young girls because they don't believe women have the right to travel without a man. They don't stone women for revealing their face and so on....

In my opinion: Present day Christianity doesn't create the same degree of violent irrational extremism. And yes, some of the behavior can be explained by western meddling, but not all the behavior. There is a larger minority of Islamic followers that resort to violence much easier when their religion is criticized. And many more of the moral codes of islam are barbaric, and disrespectful of western law, while Christianity generally accepts western law easier.

Shaz,

Nat was right about you being a Nazi. Just kill everybody who you perceive as a threat to your government administration. You don't believe in the idea of free speech at all. You'd have so many political prisoners that there would be no place to put them.

You are just as extreme as the Islamic fundies.

What happens when that free speech is endangering the lives of your very citizens, and the survival of advanced civilization as a whole? Should you tolerate the intolerant? Have you ever watched the film Patton? Basically, if you didn't have guys who thought like Patton, the masses would always surrender like sheep to barbarians like Hitler, as France did.

When I see an extreme Islamic cleric shouting like a complete lunatic, screaming that sharia law is coming, and the west is going to crumble, in favor of a global Islamic state, and that the infidels will all pay... the guy needs to be either in a mental institution, locked away somewhere, or assassinated. And I don't really care which. Although, locking him up takes up more resources and taxes from the state, so I prefer death. I really don't have much sympathy for insanity. To me, it is a threat to our very survival.

There is a story of Marcus Aurelius (stoic philosopher) (roman emperor) who had a confrontation with Christian revolutionaries within his kingdom, they wanted to overthrow the universities, the democratic system, and replace it with a state completely run by Christian leaders, and totally influenced by the bible, similar to what some of the Islamic extremists are calling for. He didn't have much time to respond, so he ordered his armies to sabotage their next meeting and he had them all slaughtered. He didn't regret his decision because he seen the threat as something much more serious, it could have threatened the progress of philosophy and science for thousands of years if he didn't act.

Sher, I just suffered through a course on political philosophy. Ryan accurately represents liberalism, although he's more honest. (I wouldn't call him more extreme, though.) Illiberalism is the one thing liberals cannot and will not tolerate.

Liberalism, as I've come to understand it, includes a bunch of virtually identical political positions that range from anarchy and libertarianism, through to liberalism and multiculturalism, all the way to communitarianism and cosmopolitanism. If you have some idea what Mill or Kant were about, you've already got the gyst of every single one of those -isms.

If you do not cherish any of these values, you are not a liberal: individuality, personal property, pleasure, tolerance, equality, and free will.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:My point Diebert is that extreme Christianity isn't as much of a threat to world stability as Extreme Islam. As of late, Radically thinking Christians haven't bombed Europeans subway systems, or city streets.

No, they have bombed whole countries into the stone age (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Palestine).

Ryan Rudolph wrote:They haven't stabbed film makers to death for criticizing their prophet. They haven't threatened violence when professors make funny cartoons of their prophets. Extreme Christians generally do not murder lovers for eloping.

Nope, they've been too busy killing babies through economic sanction, bombs, and depleted uranium.

They haven't demanded that western law systems switch over to a backwards thinking sharia law, which moral codes are back in the stones age, with the old testament somewhere.

No, they have demanded that eastern governments kowtow to the moneyed Empire-makers of the west.

They haven't bombed schools, murdering women and young girls because they don't believe women have the right to travel without a man. They don't stone women for revealing their face and so on....

No, but they kill legions more with the brutal efficiency of technology, soulless leadership, and a mind-controlled bloodthirsty military.

Have you ever watched the film Patton? Basically, if you didn't have guys who thought like Patton, the masses would always surrender like sheep to barbarians like Hitler, as France did.

Patton was never tested as a defensive fighter, so who knows what he would have done in the situation facing France and the British Expeditionary Force in 1940. In any case "the masses" did not surrender like sheep. They were unprepared by their political leadership, they were surprised, and they were outfought. But still they inflicted over 150,000 casualties before capitulating. What generals like Patton have to do with poor radical Islam I do not know.

When I see an extreme Islamic cleric shouting like a complete lunatic, screaming that sharia law is coming, and the west is going to crumble, in favor of a global Islamic state, and that the infidels will all pay... the guy needs to be either in a mental institution, locked away somewhere, or assassinated. And I don't really care which. Although, locking him up takes up more resources and taxes from the state, so I prefer death. I really don't have much sympathy for insanity. To me, it is a threat to our very survival.

How is his raving any more of a threat than yours here? How are either rantings constitute "a threat to our very survival"? Are you against the very free speech you hold up as a prime feature of the western system?

Carl G wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

They haven't bombed schools, murdering women and young girls because they don't believe women have the right to travel without a man. They don't stone women for revealing their face and so on....

No, but they kill legions more with the brutal efficiency of technology, soulless leadership, and a mind-controlled bloodthirsty military.

There was this research, in itself a ruthless, soulless type of research but here you go:

"46 per cent of the victims of US air strikes whose gender could be determined were female and 39 per cent were children". [recent report in New England Journal of Medicine, covering 2003-2008].

Interestingly the same report shows from the victims of suicide bombings only 12 percent were children.

Trev,

If you do not cherish any of these values, you are not a liberal: individuality, personal property, pleasure, tolerance, equality, and free will.

Would you say that Ryan has all these values? If not, which ones do you think he has?

Ryan Rudolph wrote: As of late, Radically thinking Christians haven't bombed Europeans subway systems, or city streets.

But the ones who did, including local groups like IRA, ETA, RFA, all had a clear agenda of political disagreement. Just like any other terrorizing, suicidal group in the world, Hindu radicals, Tamil rebels, etc. It's nothing new really. The Middle East happens to be Muslim and oil rich. If we had taken so much interest in Africa we'd have Zulu terrorists or Pygmy bombers crawl into our sewer system.

They haven't stabbed film makers to death for criticizing their prophet.

Actually in the van Gogh case Bouyeri was born and raised in the Netherlands, a product from the specifics of this society. Isolated, at the fringe, not connected to any larger body in the Islam or elsewhere he got hooked up some some very fringe, small, extremist militant group with hardly any identity or internal consistence. And van Gogh was not criticizing their prophet, his movie was alleging extreme abuse in Muslim relationships, based on various hearsay accounts, portraying scars on female nudity covered with verses from the Qu'ran written on their bruised skin. Nobody is making movies of blue asses of little abused choir boys with the Song of Songs written all over them. But why not?

They haven't threatened violence when professors make funny cartoons of their prophets.

Well, the cartoon associated a world-religion with terrorism. Some level of protest and concern is understandable. There's a lot of suspicion in the Muslim world that they are somehow becoming the 21st century Jew, the fall guy for the troubles of the world just because of their radical elements that arise out of a complex set of circumstances. Mind you the Jews contained in the 1930's quite a few radical communist and terrorist-like elements too.

The out of control spinning of the story, the massive protests and violence threats only occurred after everybody and his dog started reprinting, rehashing and thereby creating way more fuzz. It soon became warped out of proportion. All people that were actually killed were some protesters that clashed with police, moderate Muslims killing more radical type Muslims in all cases.

Sher, it's basically impossible to navigate why liberals consider some things Rights, but don't consider the virtues that make those rights meaningful Good. I've read my share of essays defending this distinction. You can cut the cognitive dissonance with a knife. That Ryan makes this mistake as well, and so openly, does not, in any way, make him a fascist.

By demanding that reality behave in absurd ways (all people are the same, free will is meaningful, no one is more powerful than anyone else), liberalism kind of implodes in on itself. Liberalism is as bad as fascism. I see similarities, sure. But I'm not going to call him a fascist: he represents a different form of cruelty.

Now, to the question.

Ryan is doing nothing but appealing to liberal values. World stability, as far as he uses it, is a defense of property. The funny cartoons of professors is individuality. He even argues for tolerance by saying we should not tolerate the intolerant.

One common theme in liberalism is the invention of the mentally unfit. Ryan's suggestion that an Islamic cleric be thrown into a loony-bin is liberalism in a nutshell. That cleric is not Rational. He damages private property, and keeps people from working and being happy. Humans are only ends-in-themselves if they are rational, otherwise they are dangerous and can die starving in the streets.

Diebert,

And van Gogh was not criticizing their prophet, his movie was alleging extreme abuse in Muslim relationships, based on various hearsay accounts, portraying scars on female nudity covered with verses from the Qu'ran written on their bruised skin. Nobody is making movies of blue asses of little abused choir boys with the Song of Songs written all over them. But why not?

But there are, they're are a whole host of documentaries that criticize Christianity, and Late night comedy pokes fun at Christian priests all the time. For instance: Jay Lenno and Conan Obrian target Catholic priests in their monologues all the time, but why not Mohammad? Why are Catholic priests fair game, but Islamic symbols are not? Perhaps because comedians instinctively know that there is more hypersensitivity in islam...

Although, Christianity has had a history of the same sort of hypersensitivity to criticism, but they are much more docile as a group now, they have been bombarded by attack for so many decades by the west that perhaps members of the christian faith are used to resorting to counter-arguments rather than going straight for the Arabian dagger, know what I mean?

Carl,

No, they have bombed whole countries into the stone age (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Palestine).

So as a counter-argument, you are basically saying, well Christians are guilty of the same sorts of atrocities, just look at America. However, you're assuming that America is "Christian" nation-state. However, I disagree, the leaders in the US government and business are a mix of so many different religions and philosophies that it is impossible to assert that America is this or that. America is controlled by individuals from all different backgrounds, which makes it a little more desirable in my opinion because free speech is more tolerated. Free speech allows for a chance at rationality, order and stability, which is the ultimate goal in any society.

Trevor,

Sher, it's basically impossible to navigate why liberals consider some things Rights, but don't consider the virtues that make those rights meaningful Good.

liberalism isn't overly complicated, it is an extension of libertarianism, which means there is a bit more pork in government to increase the quality of human life through social programs. I fall somewhere in the middle. I believe to live an intellectual life, an individual must be free from harm, which is a function of the state. Hence - the police force. Basically, without a deterrent, crime would be worse than it is. The deterrent also provides economic stability over time, which is necessary for individuals to secure basic food, clothes and shelter. There will be corruption in any police force and government, but it is better than the alternative - anarchy, which I believe doesn't work, as humans are too irrational for it.

Ryan is doing nothing but appealing to liberal values. World stability, as far as he uses it, is a defense of property. The funny cartoons of professors is individuality. He even argues for tolerance by saying we should not tolerate the intolerant.

As I said, the defense of private property is primarily a libertarian value, it is one of the most basic human entitlements. The funny cartoons point to something deeper - freedom of speech, which is necessary for the emergence of rationality, creativity, science, and all the rest of it. Freedom of Speech is such a valuable attribute that it needs to be protected. If it is lost, humanity regresses back into an inferior state, in which the environment no longer supports intellectual freedom. Moreover, if the intolerant threaten the lives of people, or threatens the stability of the society by inciting violence and rebellion, then the individual needs to be removed.

Basically, most of my arguments are libertarian arguments. Basic freedom from harm arguments. However, Liberal arguments assume humans have the right to other basic entitlements. IE: health care, education, and so on. Liberalism supports welfare, whereas Libertarianism does not. It is more basic, it is like the roots of the tree, whereas liberalism are the branches that grow later on.

The country I live in: Canada - is a primarily liberal state, and we enjoy a high quality of living, there is open free speech, rationality is encouraged to a degree, science thrives, but Canada started as a libertarian state, just like the US started as a libertarian state.

Moreover, I believe that governments naturally evolve into liberal states, as the government brings in more tax money, has larger tax annual surpluses, and meanwhile, the public is demanding more services. It is basically an inevitable consequence of economic growth.

One common theme in liberalism is the invention of the mentally unfit. Ryan's suggestion that an Islamic cleric be thrown into a loony-bin is liberalism in a nutshell. That cleric is not Rational. He damages private property, and keeps people from working and being happy. Humans are only ends-in-themselves if they are rational, otherwise they are dangerous and can die starving in the streets.

Another freedom from harm argument, meaning if an individual threatens the stability of the overall society, he must be assessed. And yes, the cleric was insane, so I believe he should be removed by force. The government has that power, because the citizens demand to be protected from harm. It is a basic entitlement for survival.

Actually, when it comes to compassion for the criminal, insane and so on, it is indeed a liberal value that says we should take care of them through social programs. A libertarian would say no, let them fed for themselves. I fall under the libertarian camp, only i say we should even take life in unique circumstances. I used to be more liberal when it comes to compassion, but I realized that sympathy for the criminal and insane makes the whole society more criminal and insane over time.

And yes, I do value rationality over all else, and I do believe that rationality deserves more basic entitlements to life than extreme insanity.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:

No, they have bombed whole countries into the stone age (Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Palestine).

So as a counter-argument, you are basically saying, well Christians are guilty of the same sorts of atrocities, just look at America. However, you're assuming that America is "Christian" nation-state. However, I disagree, the leaders in the US government and business are a mix of so many different religions and philosophies that it is impossible to assert that America is this or that. America is controlled by individuals from all different backgrounds,

Nope, America is basically controlled by Judeo-Christians. If you think there is also a significant mix of Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Zulu, Lakota, or anything else in there, please point it out with specifics.

You see diversity in America. There is diversity, yes, among the people, but not at the top.

Ryan,

Free speech allows for a chance at rationality, order and stability, which is the ultimate goal in any society.

Right. That's why we need to kill a cleric for speaking his mouth.

Trev,

I find your analysis of liberalism and its contradictions pretty enlightening. I have nothing to add at the moment, but wanted you to know that I enjoyed reading your blogs.

**** Wonders to herself: When is Victor going to find his way to this discussion? ****

Ryan Rudolph wrote:But there are, they're are a whole host of documentaries that criticize Christianity, and Late night comedy pokes fun at Christian priests all the time.

None of them painted literary bible verses on children asses though and got the platform of national TV and wide cinema distribution. Somehow this documentary did that while it was based on a collection of unverifiable stories as opposed to official cases where priests were actually convicted.

There are a lot of high-tension elements in society these days who are getting triggered by relatively minor issues. All sorts of things. Another high-profile murder in the same timeframe involved Pim Fortuyn, a reforming outsider who was heading for a majority and possibly minister-president in election time. Shot by a Dutch left-winger with concerns that Fortuyn would be 'the new Hitler' and also would allow more animals to be slaughtered. But nobody was concerned about left-wing terror or the bad philosophy of environmental issues.

People have issues, have guns. People take out whatever comes in their cross-hairs of frustration: family, lovers, fellow-students, offending journalists or politicians. This is already going on for a while and is increasing. My question: what's the relevance of Islam specifically here when it's obviously used as justification to hide other issues.

For instance: Jay Lenno and Conan Obrian target Catholic priests in their monologues all the time, but why not Mohammad? Why are Catholic priests fair game, but Islamic symbols are not? Perhaps because comedians instinctively know that there is more hypersensitivity in islam...

First of all Catholicism is closer to home so the more obvious target. Personally I don't get the impression Islamic symbols would not be ridiculed in the same fashion where I live.

Actually in my country the Muslims are not concerned about the Fitna move, they laugh about it mostly or some start court cases revolving around the pattern of statements, including the movie. There was a cartoon riot here as well see: here for stories and picture. But the riot was not by Muslims, it were the free-speech nazies that rioted against the government censoring publication. The Muslims indicated not to be enraged by any of it, including a cartoon that portrays Mohammed doggy-style fucking Anne Frank.

So my point is that is that this is not about a specific content, it's about patterns, reach of publication and general reaction of those responsible (publisher and government). If you examine the stories then this is the real beef to those organizing the protests.

Although, Christianity has had a history of the same sort of hypersensitivity to criticism, but they are much more docile as a group now, they have been bombarded by attack for so many decades by the west that perhaps members of the christian faith are used to resorting to counter-arguments rather than going straight for the Arabian dagger, know what I mean?

Perhaps so. Christianity has turned more inward and dreams about the next world in their churches and prayer groups. Or some of it is modernized and changed much of their moral and theological stance as to cope with changing culture. In many ways, they seized being relevant as change-bringing social force. The Islam traditionally holds a different view on its capacity to reform society by aiming more for outward manifestation. Then again, Islam is modernizing as well slowly. It might be seen as a good thing but it opens the door for extreme splinter groups and individuals there as well in the same way it does in a modernized Christian society.

Shaz,

Right. That's why we need to kill a cleric for speaking his mouth.

He's not just speaking his mouth, he's talking about a revolution within western states, where young muslims take up arms, and assassinate people in government in order to bring about an islamic revolution. Huge different. He has hostile intent, and what makes matters worse is that his meme is toxic, meme meaning brain patterns, and his karmic presence can last in a society for decades, especially if governments allow him to get fame. Moreover, many times these individuals can be just as powerful and influential from prisons. In my opinion, individuals like that are much more of a threat to humanity than serial killers. And we used to cook serial killers in an electric chair...now, we are more humane about it - lethal injection.

Carl,

Nope, America is basically controlled by Judeo-Christians. If you think there is also a significant mix of Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Zulu, Lakota, or anything else in there, please point it out with specifics.

If you analyze any government's adminstration, it is definitely a mix of agnostics, atheists, religious people of different faiths, they are voted in by the public, just like corporate power is comprised of people of all different thinking backgrounds. There is more division in America, because there is more difference in opinion, which is a good thing as far as rationality is concerned. However, if you look at a State as as Iran or Saudi Arabia, the leaders are all strict islam believers of a particular type, and they make decisions in union with their religious convictions. That is why the environment in Islam is not as favorable to freedom of speech, strides in science and philosophy.

Diebert,

People have issues, have guns. People take out whatever comes in their cross-hairs of frustration: family, lovers, fellow-students, offending journalists or politicians. This is already going on for a while and is increasing. My question: what's the relevance of Islam specifically here when it's obviously used as justification to hide other issues.

perhaps so, although my intuition tells me that members of the Islamic faith are more hypersensitive than many other religious groups to criticism and different views. However, I'll admit that it could be my bias because we see more of radicalized islam in the media compared to other groups. And some of that radicalized behavior is indeed related to poverty in the area, and the meddling of western states. However, part of me believes that islam has been isolated far longer as a religion, while christianity has been around longer in more diverse areas, and so it has had a chance to integrate with other ways of thinking in a nonviolent way. Perhaps islam will also go through a similar transition over time....

Ryan Rudolph wrote:If you analyze any government's adminstration, it is definitely a mix of agnostics, atheists, religious people of different faiths, they are voted in by the public,

No, the administration is not voted in by the public in America, it is appointed by the President.

I asked you to provide proof of your statement and you simply restate it and tell me to "analyze" it myself. That's bullshit.

just like corporate power is comprised of people of all different thinking backgrounds.

Again, not at the top. At the top of the power pyramid (for example, the lion's share of the media in America is owned by 5 corporations) the thinking is very much the same. If it is different show me how. How does it affect product, marketing, profit-sharing, or any other way that corporation acts?

There is more division in America, because there is more difference in opinion, which is a good thing as far as rationality is concerned.

This is false. Difference of opinion does not positively impact rationality. Even the most ignorant people have opinions, most of them very delusional. Having an opinion in no way gets you closer to rationality. Opinions, actually are anathema to rationality, because they are directly opposed to logic. Logic, the basis of rationality, has no use for opinion.

However, if you look at a State as as Iran or Saudi Arabia, the leaders are all strict islam believers of a particular type, and they make decisions in union with their religious convictions. That is why the environment in Islam is not as favorable to freedom of speech, strides in science and philosophy.

This is just your same old song and dance again: Western system good, Islamic system bad. I've already debunked it. Fuck your "strides in science and philosophy". Those have just as hard a time in the west. Most of what passes for such is nothing more than state-sponsored boys clubs spreading misinformation and encouraging cage-thinking.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:liberalism isn't overly complicated, it is an extension of libertarianism.

Yes, strictly speaking, liberalism is Rawls, who built on Nozick, who built on Kant. However, the differences amongst many similar positions are so slight that I also include every single political position that liberals have only minor disagreements with under the heading "liberal", including libertarianism and anarchy.

Only positions that liberals will not tolerate because they are foreign to the liberal mindset, are illiberal. Theocracies, non-egalitarian political systems (caste-systems and feudalism), poststructuralism, totalitarianism, anything derived from Eastern religions, neolithic aboriginal societies, people who deliberately freeride the system, the emergence of new cultures, and so on.

I fall somewhere in the middle.

Yes, but only the middle of liberalism. To others, it's not so moderate. Nat sees fascism in your liberalism, and was able to convince Sher of it quite readily. That's how extreme liberalism actually is.

There will be corruption in any police force and government, but it is better than the alternative - anarchy, which I believe doesn't work, as humans are too irrational for it.

Anarchy is something that a Rawlsian liberal would tolerate if it were possible. As far as I'm concerned, it's still liberalism. Kind of the extreme edge, when even liberals start to see their beliefs breaking down. No wonder they call it something else.

Freedom of Speech is such a valuable attribute that it needs to be protected. If it is lost, humanity regresses back into an inferior state, in which the environment no longer supports intellectual freedom. Moreover, if the intolerant threaten the lives of people, or threatens the stability of the society by inciting violence and rebellion, then the individual needs to be removed.

I'm just quoting this for future reference. I can't think of a snappy reply yet.

Canada - is a primarily liberal state, and we enjoy a high quality of living, there is open free speech, rationality is encouraged to a degree, science thrives, but Canada started as a libertarian state, just like the US started as a libertarian state.

On my political radar, Canada is nothing other than a liberal state. They discuss which version of liberalism is the best, but it's all just different words for the same thing. Yes, Americans are the same.

The closest thing to dissent within Canada comes from the First Nations, who, after some initial slaughters, have suffered the Palestinian treatment for the last few centuries. Their voice isn't very loud, at least not in Canada. Most of them just ride the system -- and liberals think that the Natives are the unjust ones. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't real.

The government has that power, because the citizens demand to be protected from harm.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. The origin of social contracts is Thomas Hobbes, who firmly believed that all of humanity formed some kind of unified intelligent superbeing (a mortal God) that consciously and deliberately and automatically destroys all undesirables like a body expelling waste.

Credit where credit is due: Hobbes could only have been pulling some kind of sociopathic prank. It's like he wanted to kill as many people as possible without taking any heat whatsoever. I dunno, maybe I just haven't agreed with My Fellow Canadians for so long it's hard to believe that this social contract business is serious.


Edit: I just read this post now, but it's appropriate:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:In my opinion, individuals like that are much more of a threat to humanity than serial killers. And we used to cook serial killers in an electric chair...now, we are more humane about it - lethal injection.

You caring about humanity is exactly identical to caring about the Leviathan. God forbid someone threatens that perverse abstraction.

Besides, there's just enough Reasonable Doubt to believe that Hobbes didn't contribute to the deaths of countless millions. And Adolf Hitler didn't personally sign execution orders. I wonder what would happen if Hobbes were blamed? That raving lunatic you picked out from countless thousands might be seen as the small fry he is.

And supposing Hobbes is truly capable of that -- and you evidently believe so, since you're willing to grant one raving lunatic that power over the minds of millions -- would you take away freedom of speech? Would you prevent any future Hobbeses from talking in the interests of public safety? How many liberal values can you hold before you stop making sense entirely?

Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, I'll admit that it could be my bias because we see more of radicalized islam in the media compared to other groups.

This is exactly what I see as problematic in most reporting and following discussions. This pretense that we're dealing with a group, labeled at times "fundamentalist", Islamists, radicals, militants, network, insurgence and so on. Or the idea that because they're all having the Islam in common would be some major signifier. For now I don't buy it. The Islam is just a very popular religion with many facets to it. She also provides a traditional framework for revival, social change and revolution which is now being re-interpreted by a small minority for certain way more militant, violent philosophies.

The Western world has its own problem with certain evangelicals who openly sponsor hawkish policies and lobby for a showdown with the forces of evil. Their militant vigilant groups would probably arise the moment the government would stop fulfilling so many of their wishes. This is exactly what happened in Egypt for example and gave birth to the first stage of Al Qaida, as they became blocked from political participation when it endangered certain geopolitical realities that the sitting Egyptian government and their business ties decided to prioritize.

And some of that radicalized behavior is indeed related to poverty in the area

From what I know it happens in all classes of society to the same degree. Where else would the funding come from for their operations and weapons? Not from the poor believers. So it has to be a different root and this is why people have started to suspect the religion itself as it does appear as a recurring theme and inspiration. But correlation does not always means cause.

However, part of me believes that islam has been isolated far longer as a religion

Perhaps in some ways but Muslim societies like Indonesia or the Emirates do not seem very isolated to me in any way. Islam is also able to blend in multi-culturally [mostly] in many societies like India and more recently Lebanon. But indeed you were saying "as religion". Which is the problem: it's as religion connected to culture, custom and society way stronger than Christianity is right now. So we can judge a Muslim society like Iran as repressive in some ways while they are more way more liberal and advanced than a backward Western-embraced ally like Saudi-Arabia - a country which supplied most of the 9-11 terrorists as well. Or we could judge the Moroccan culture as backward, their quite specific detached family structures collapsing under the strain of modernity and its more nuclear family demands. Which then causes immense problems when their society rapidly changes. But a specific Muslim problem this still ain't.

It's not like I want to defend the Islam here. They're dreaming of their own Renaissance in a 'god is dead' world. There might be a relative small revival of interest happening but the larger wheels run into another direction altogether. It's possible that in the following decades we'll see more Judeo-Christian home-grown terror than Islamic terror. Fearing Muslim corruption is a bit like fearing airplane crashes and prefer the way more lethal car as transportation. It's all about emotional forms of perception.

BMcGilly07 wrote:What is the most vital threat to consciousness today? Is it Islam?

Ah! I get it! The Absolute!

My name sucks! Can I change it?

420

Right, we get it, you're high on weed tonight.

Carl G wrote:Right, we get it, you're high on weed tonight.

Yeah, or maybe he's trippin'...or Poe's law is in effect?

Hi Paco!

"'Reality' is the only word in the language which should always be used in quotes."

~Timothy Leary

"Reality" yes, also: "Truth", "good","bad","logic","reasoning" and "enlightenment".

...and "art"

Keep on truckin', like they did in the 70's!

Shouldn't all words be used in quotes?

-

"Yes" ...

That's "true", "David". Leary didn't think that one through. Maybe he wasn't "trippin'" on the day that he wrote that quote. ;)

Trevor,

would you take away freedom of speech? Would you prevent any future Hobbeses from talking in the interests of public safety? How many liberal values can you hold before you stop making sense entirely?

It's a balance between defending positive rights of others, and giving the public access to the necessary positive rights. Basically, If the state is to defend the negative rights of people, it must infringe on the rights of others. Political philosophy in my opinion, is trying to balance the right amount of liberal policy with libertarian policy to come up with a sort of balanced yin/yang. However, a government can easily take too many actions on the public, trying to do good, and thereby putting the system out of balance.

For instance: to protect the negative rights of the public, a state might start listening in on their phone calls, tracking the use of certain words, as a means to locate potential threats. (patriot act) Much like an anti-virus on a computer, but then we get into a violation of other rights on people that have done nothing wrong, and these people could get prosecuted for unrelated crimes by the state through a breach of privacy. However, if techniques like this were used correctly, there probably wouldn't be a problem, but there is always a fear by the public that the government could abuse the power of listening and recording the details of people's lives.

Carl,

Fuck your "strides in science and philosophy". Those have just as hard a time in the west.

You seem to have an overly cynical view of the west. However, the west is a utopia compared to much of the middle east, and even Asia for that matter. You cannot deny the western states enjoy a higher quality of life, less religious solidarity, a higher degree of freedom of speech, more respect of science, and so on. The west is just better to live as far as being a rational intellectual. You would have to be a lunatic to choose a state like Jordan or Saudi Arabia over the United States. Basically, the main difference is that even though the US has a lot of nonsense in their culture, none of it has absolute power. And therefore, the US has more advanced laws as far as allowing scientific, philosophical and artistic creativity to flourish. And the US has a longer history of respecting their own citizen's human rights, but not their 'perceived' enemies.

Diebert,

So it has to be a different root and this is why people have started to suspect the religion itself as it does appear as a recurring theme and inspiration. But correlation does not always means cause.

A good point to make is that eliminating types of fundamentalism one by one will not bring us any closer to a sane world, unless we tackle the root problem, which is an emotionally driven ego that desires to believe in things so strongly that it makes the psyche violent and divided. The other half of the puzzle here is basically man's emotional turmoil, which is evident in every culture, and whatever meme the individual gobbles is relative and ultimately determined by the environment in which he was born.

it reminds me of an episode of south park, where in the future, all religion has been eliminated from the world, but you have slightly different ideological versions of atheism that are fighting with each other, in a bloody war. The humor I see in that episode is that the particular ideology are just branches, but the root is man's irrational and emotional desire to believe strongly in things, as ideology. Such a psychological mistake guarantees conflict and division.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:it reminds me of an episode of south park (...) but the root is man's irrational desire to arm violent opposition

There are other ways to interpret that [quite funny] episode. Perhaps more like Heraclitus: "War is father of all and king of all". Even if it would be irrational to arm violent opposition, once it happens, the rational response in terms of survival is to arm a responding violent counter-opposition. And as such removing any distinction between rationality and irrationality around this matter.

This human-animal drive to expand, multiply, conquer, shape, rape, build and order is the framework where military conquest and all armed opposition can have its rational place. Rationality is warlike, has to be warring in a measured way, at least in a deeply irrational, unconscious world. This is how the Greek and Romans 'civilized' the world. It was a bit like wisdom hitching a ride on the back of the conquering beast.

Has humanity in the mean time become more peaceful, more rational perhaps? Perhaps we should consider this didn't happen at all. We have more moral codes, more laws, more law enforcement, more spying and snitching, more social and political control going on. Isn't this perhaps only a reaction to an increase of irrational forces? Like our weapon treaties and safeguards are a result of realizing the potentiality havoc a full-scale war or even small-scale terrorism can cause to our increasingly vulnerable societies? The need for control spiraling out of control.

These are dark thoughts and highly unpopular. Seeing the world through these eyes would show peace mostly being a mask for perpetual war, pacifism a luxury for those being able to afford it - a lucky circumstance - and world unity a menace for freedom and progress. When the lid comes off, the human mind perhaps has not progressed that much at all. It only learned to contain, to drive itself increasingly insane?