(January 10, 2015 at 9:57 pm)Drich Wrote: What you don't seem to get about religion is for most it is not the idea of magic or superstition. Religion and religious worship is a practice in methodology, for the express purpose of some worldly/religious based reward. Meaning most people align themselves with religion so as to be in the social rewards program a given religion boasts.

Most people align with a religion because the society they live in makes life miserable for those who resist that alignment. The rest do so because they buy into the magic and superstition, and too many of those kind are willing to harm or kill others if the voices in their head say to go and do it.

Neither of these things provide benefits for society which outweigh the damage it does.

(January 10, 2015 at 12:09 am)Drich Wrote: Now I am wondering what can we do that will really piss these radical Islamist off...

Dude, they just killed, what, thirteen people over some drawings. My guess is that the answer to that question is literally anything that doesn't treat their religion with utter reverence.

Quote: If dbag failed rapper/pizza delivery boy/druggy who went to jail and was corn holed into becoming muslim wants to shoot at people for posting cartoons of mo-ham, then I say let"s put these pillars of the muslim community in front of the right people to shoot at. (One's like myself who are prepared to shoot back, with equal or greater force) this will keep them from targeting a bunch of candy asses like chuck who's only shooting happens off his mouth

I just wanna dissect the logic here, real quick: "Those muslims murdering people are bad, so if I perform exactly the same action, somehow that'll be good!"

Since when has escalation ever made anything better?

(January 10, 2015 at 11:49 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Most people align with a religion because the society they live in makes life miserable for those who resist that alignment.

i spoke of the carrot you speak of the stick, but either way it is a rewards program. Now ask yourself with a violent religion why does a given soceity allow it?

Quote:The rest do so because they buy into the magic and superstition, and too many of those kind are willing to harm or kill others if the voices in their head say to go and do it.

Neither of these things provide benefits for society which outweigh the damage it does.

Don't be naive. Voices in the head do not account for on mass sustained coordinated strike. One of two things is happening. The voice is real and consistant. Or evil men use this religion to play out attacks against the world.

As the masses do not report on hearing a unified voice then those who do use the religion for their own gains. This is no different than how the church used christianity in the dark ages.[/quote]

---

(January 10, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Dude, they just killed, what, thirteen people over some drawings. My guess is that the answer to that question is literally anything that doesn't treat their religion with utter reverence.

I kinda got that, that is why I purposed to use the cartoons on mass as a means to treat that religion with contempt.

Quote:I just wanna dissect the logic here, real quick: "Those muslims murdering people are bad, so if I perform exactly the same action, somehow that'll be good!"

Since when has escalation ever made anything better?

Your 'logic' beggs the question. Your assuming that a bumper stick gives on the right to murder people.

The bumper sticker simply shows contempt to those radical enough to act. (Which is a real albeit small possibility) I would hate to put someone like you or chuck in the sights of a terrorist AK-47, because despite your faith in the 'pen being mightier than the sword.' Reality is the flesh is weaker than a few 7.62 slugs, and while your peers may live on to write about what you said before you were chopped down by those slugs. Make no mistake people like this absolutly love to "debate" with people like you and chuck. Why? Because they always win. Just look at what happened at Charlie Hebdo. A dozen of the sharpest satirical minds could not refute the arguements of just two wantobe stoner pizza delivery boy/rappers.

That is why I suggest taking these stickers to people who can debate on equal if not greater terms than those who want to kill over drawings.

Philosophy, logic, and reason is great and will always wins out, till someone picks up a rock.

Whether you guys want to admit it or not we/our soceities are tied to people/soceities like this, (evil Islam) and despite how you want to live your life, one must remain open minded enough to met a threat to your way of life on equal or greater terms.

Otherwise, they will keep sending one or two people to remind us how mighty our 'pens' really are.[/quote]

(January 11, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: A dozen of the sharpest satirical minds could not refute the arguements of just two wantobe stoner pizza delivery boy/rappers.

This is an idiotic reading of the events. The two murderers tyook up arms precisely because they could not refute the points made by the cartoonists; murder was the only way they could answer the critiques.

Violence is not an argument. Violence is the way assholes end an argument.

(January 11, 2015 at 12:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: A dozen of the sharpest satirical minds could not refute the arguements of just two wantobe stoner pizza delivery boy/rappers.

This is an idiotic reading of the events. The two murderers tyook up arms precisely because they could not refute the points made by the cartoonists; murder was the only way they could answer the critiques.

Violence is not an argument. Violence is the way assholes end an argument.

Could not agree more, Parkers. To quote the ever-quotable Isaac Asimov, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

Were they not so bloody stupid, they'd realize that they only hurt the cause they claimed to be fostering. With friends like that.....

(January 10, 2015 at 9:57 pm)Drich Wrote: i spoke of the carrot you speak of the stick, but either way it is a rewards program. Now ask yourself with a violent religion why does a given soceity allow it?

Did you actually make this assessment thinking it didn't 100% apply to you and your religion?

(January 11, 2015 at 12:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 10:22 am)Drich Wrote: A dozen of the sharpest satirical minds could not refute the arguements of just two wantobe stoner pizza delivery boy/rappers.

This is an idiotic reading of the events. The two murderers tyook up arms precisely because they could not refute the points made by the cartoonists; murder was the only way they could answer the critiques.

Violence is not an argument. Violence is the way assholes end an argument.

That's exactly my point sport!

These two are using a tactic that you nor your buddies are able to respond to.

So why not place them in front of those are are equipt to speak to them on a level they can understand? Maybe someone who wants to have that type of conversation.

---

(January 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 9:57 pm)Drich Wrote: i spoke of the carrot you speak of the stick, but either way it is a rewards program. Now ask yourself with a violent religion why does a given soceity allow it?

Did you actually make this assessment thinking it didn't 100% apply to you and your religion?

What makes you think that?

I am not a fan of radical religion of any brand.

(January 11, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Drich Wrote: These two are using a tactic that you nor your buddies are able to respond to.

False
We would rather not sink to their level.
Other effective responses can and do protect our journalists.
Intelligence, police action, even NSA monitoring is intended to eliminate attacks like what happened at Charlie Hebdo.
There are ongoing arguments over the balance of liberty vs security, but the rarity of effective terrorist attacks in the west speaks to how well these approaches work as well as the incompetence of the attackers.
There is another balance at play, commercial media wants to put as many eyes on themselves as possible so they can sell those eyes to advertisers. This plays into the hands of those whose chief impact comes from small scale, dramatic violent events. Without media attention the structural or economic impact of terrorist attacks is negligible. The most effective terrorist attack (9/11) of recent memory had a substantial impact;
$178 billion in physical and direct economic damages.
However it was the violent -let's go get them- reaction that really cost: $3,122 billion mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/....html?_r=0
We would all like to see the terrorists get their comeuppance. They are despicable toads but an eye for an eye is a really antiquated strategy. We should publish more satirical cartoons and fewer breaking news reports on zealots with AKs.

(January 11, 2015 at 9:36 pm)JuliaL Wrote: False

I know of 12 examples of this being true.

Quote:We would rather not sink to their level.

indeed, but when a man with a gun chops you down to his level what other option does one have other than die?

Quote:Other effective responses can and do protect our journalists.

they did, but only in our 'safe zones' ISIS showed us that on their turf, journalists receive no quarter... Appearently now what we thought were safe zones are no longer safe.

Quote:Intelligence, police action, even NSA monitoring is intended to eliminate attacks like what happened at Charlie Hebdo.

your 1/2 right. In that goverment monitoring can only address coordinated attacks. Lone or paired wolf attacks apart from luck can not be stopped by the goverment. Even the French goverment says there is nothing can be done to stop everyone. They said it takes 2 dozen people to properly follow just one person. That is why they focus on large scale properly funded attacks. They get more bang for their euro.

Quote:There are ongoing arguments over the balance of liberty vs security, but the rarity of effective terrorist attacks in the west speaks to how well these approaches work as well as the incompetence of the attackers.

how many attacks do you think there has been in the west since 9/11?

Quote:There is another balance at play, commercial media wants to put as many eyes on themselves as possible so they can sell those eyes to advertisers. This plays into the hands of those whose chief impact comes from small scale, dramatic violent events. Without media attention the structural or economic impact of terrorist attacks is negligible. The most effective terrorist attack (9/11) of recent memory had a substantial impact;
$178 billion in physical and direct economic damages.
However it was the violent -let's go get them- reaction that really cost: $3,122 billion mostly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/....html?_r=0
We would all like to see the terrorists get their comeuppance. They are despicable toads but an eye for an eye is a really antiquated strategy. We should publish more satirical cartoons and fewer breaking news reports on zealots with AKs.

Who said anything about going to get anyone? Are you so dense as to not understand the purpose of my purposed idea, yet commented on it anyway?

The stickers on the cars of gun owners is not a lets goto Islamabad and get them plan. It's about provoking a lone wolf out of the wood works and instead of attacking a jewish school, or grocery, or worse yet a whole office just full of 'you good people' (who think that your words and various expressive outlets can keep you safe from people who emote with 7.62x39mm rounds)

To maybe having a conversation/attacking with someone who can speak to them on their level.

This way when thier versions of bill marr, john daily and Richard Dawkins' of terrorism and radical Islam, finally start their campaign of anti western propaganda and satirical monologs, you guys can jump right in and save the backward gun tote'n folks from some serious intelectual burns and that awkwardness when someone really makes you look like a jackass.
[/quote]

(January 11, 2015 at 8:45 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Did you actually make this assessment thinking it didn't 100% apply to you and your religion?

What makes you think that?

I am not a fan of radical religion of any brand.