Quote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 09:10:18 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 04, 2015, 08:59:58 PMQuote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 08:57:26 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 04, 2015, 02:35:34 PMQuote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 02:32:10 PMReaction =/= ExpressionAnd murder isn't protected under law or a bill of rights. And disregarding all of that, murder still isn't expression.Sure it is. It is a form of expression because somebody got pissed off enough to consider committing it. You don't just go up and murder for no apparent reason.Protesters with signs? Angry and displeased with something. They take their anger out and make their point known with signs.Murder is violent, and violence is usually associated with anger, so, factually, yes, murder is a form of expression. It's just at the far end of the scales. It's the extreme end to how far you can go to express hatred or dislike of another human being or their actions.Is it right? No. It causes damage, inflicts trauma. Ruins lives. It's a negative form of expression. But, it is still a form of expression because the people on the other end were upset or angered enough to consider action.Just because it doesn't fall under the written paper documents of protected freedoms of speech, doesn't make it a null thing. "Freedom of Speech" is just a fancy formality. A guidline to generally streamline what is acceptable as expressing yourself or your views.Murdering someone because you're angry is a reaction, not expression. Look the words up in a dictionary.Do the math here. What does a protester feel?Anger. Dissatisfaction. What do they do? They react. The react to their feeling and they act out on it.Emotion is the core root of any expression, and expression comes in many, many different forms. How about a kid who steals things? Where one person might just wave them off as a troublemaker, somebody else might look at them and see something more.A cry for help. A plea for attention, to get it directed on them. The only tool they have at their disposal. Would you not count that as a form of expression?Somebody's whose angry or stressed, with a lot of trauma in childhood might inexplicably fight. They'd fght and fight all the time because it's a silent unspoken form of expression and showing it.Expression can take any form so long as the means to do so are available. It all depends on the mind of the person.A rational person who would disagree with drawings of that fellows name which I can't remember, might protest in response. A non rational person, aka the shooters, shoot up the place.And that's how they reacted. It's not expression. It really doesn't matter either way. This is semantics.
Quote from: challengerX on May 04, 2015, 08:59:58 PMQuote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 08:57:26 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 04, 2015, 02:35:34 PMQuote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 02:32:10 PMReaction =/= ExpressionAnd murder isn't protected under law or a bill of rights. And disregarding all of that, murder still isn't expression.Sure it is. It is a form of expression because somebody got pissed off enough to consider committing it. You don't just go up and murder for no apparent reason.Protesters with signs? Angry and displeased with something. They take their anger out and make their point known with signs.Murder is violent, and violence is usually associated with anger, so, factually, yes, murder is a form of expression. It's just at the far end of the scales. It's the extreme end to how far you can go to express hatred or dislike of another human being or their actions.Is it right? No. It causes damage, inflicts trauma. Ruins lives. It's a negative form of expression. But, it is still a form of expression because the people on the other end were upset or angered enough to consider action.Just because it doesn't fall under the written paper documents of protected freedoms of speech, doesn't make it a null thing. "Freedom of Speech" is just a fancy formality. A guidline to generally streamline what is acceptable as expressing yourself or your views.Murdering someone because you're angry is a reaction, not expression. Look the words up in a dictionary.Do the math here. What does a protester feel?Anger. Dissatisfaction. What do they do? They react. The react to their feeling and they act out on it.Emotion is the core root of any expression, and expression comes in many, many different forms. How about a kid who steals things? Where one person might just wave them off as a troublemaker, somebody else might look at them and see something more.A cry for help. A plea for attention, to get it directed on them. The only tool they have at their disposal. Would you not count that as a form of expression?Somebody's whose angry or stressed, with a lot of trauma in childhood might inexplicably fight. They'd fght and fight all the time because it's a silent unspoken form of expression and showing it.Expression can take any form so long as the means to do so are available. It all depends on the mind of the person.A rational person who would disagree with drawings of that fellows name which I can't remember, might protest in response. A non rational person, aka the shooters, shoot up the place.
Quote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 08:57:26 PMQuote from: challengerX on May 04, 2015, 02:35:34 PMQuote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 02:32:10 PMReaction =/= ExpressionAnd murder isn't protected under law or a bill of rights. And disregarding all of that, murder still isn't expression.Sure it is. It is a form of expression because somebody got pissed off enough to consider committing it. You don't just go up and murder for no apparent reason.Protesters with signs? Angry and displeased with something. They take their anger out and make their point known with signs.Murder is violent, and violence is usually associated with anger, so, factually, yes, murder is a form of expression. It's just at the far end of the scales. It's the extreme end to how far you can go to express hatred or dislike of another human being or their actions.Is it right? No. It causes damage, inflicts trauma. Ruins lives. It's a negative form of expression. But, it is still a form of expression because the people on the other end were upset or angered enough to consider action.Just because it doesn't fall under the written paper documents of protected freedoms of speech, doesn't make it a null thing. "Freedom of Speech" is just a fancy formality. A guidline to generally streamline what is acceptable as expressing yourself or your views.Murdering someone because you're angry is a reaction, not expression. Look the words up in a dictionary.
Quote from: challengerX on May 04, 2015, 02:35:34 PMQuote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 02:32:10 PMReaction =/= ExpressionAnd murder isn't protected under law or a bill of rights. And disregarding all of that, murder still isn't expression.Sure it is. It is a form of expression because somebody got pissed off enough to consider committing it. You don't just go up and murder for no apparent reason.Protesters with signs? Angry and displeased with something. They take their anger out and make their point known with signs.Murder is violent, and violence is usually associated with anger, so, factually, yes, murder is a form of expression. It's just at the far end of the scales. It's the extreme end to how far you can go to express hatred or dislike of another human being or their actions.Is it right? No. It causes damage, inflicts trauma. Ruins lives. It's a negative form of expression. But, it is still a form of expression because the people on the other end were upset or angered enough to consider action.Just because it doesn't fall under the written paper documents of protected freedoms of speech, doesn't make it a null thing. "Freedom of Speech" is just a fancy formality. A guidline to generally streamline what is acceptable as expressing yourself or your views.
Quote from: Sandtrap on May 04, 2015, 02:32:10 PMReaction =/= ExpressionAnd murder isn't protected under law or a bill of rights. And disregarding all of that, murder still isn't expression.
Quote from: Jocephalopod on May 04, 2015, 08:30:23 PMsorry to butt in here but why are we veering off and talking about representing Muslims? the actions here have nothing to do with them. this discussion is focused on those who would kill/harm others in the name of Islam.everyone knows there is an overwhelming majority of of peaceful Muslims in the world and no one is denying it but even .01 percent of 1.6 billion is a lot of fucking people willing to cause harmno one here has said anything against them.On the contrary, a lot of people are denying it. And Muslims actually have a higher proportion than that who are extremists unfortunately. But that's due to shit social conditions at the root of things, not the religion.
sorry to butt in here but why are we veering off and talking about representing Muslims? the actions here have nothing to do with them. this discussion is focused on those who would kill/harm others in the name of Islam.everyone knows there is an overwhelming majority of of peaceful Muslims in the world and no one is denying it but even .01 percent of 1.6 billion is a lot of fucking people willing to cause harmno one here has said anything against them.
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 04, 2015, 08:32:34 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on May 04, 2015, 08:30:23 PMsorry to butt in here but why are we veering off and talking about representing Muslims? the actions here have nothing to do with them. this discussion is focused on those who would kill/harm others in the name of Islam.everyone knows there is an overwhelming majority of of peaceful Muslims in the world and no one is denying it but even .01 percent of 1.6 billion is a lot of fucking people willing to cause harmno one here has said anything against them.On the contrary, a lot of people are denying it. And Muslims actually have a higher proportion than that who are extremists unfortunately. But that's due to shit social conditions at the root of things, not the religion.http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism#Economic_and_Social_Conditions
Quote from: Sly Instinct on May 04, 2015, 09:27:13 PMQuote from: Not Comms Officer on May 04, 2015, 08:32:34 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on May 04, 2015, 08:30:23 PMsorry to butt in here but why are we veering off and talking about representing Muslims? the actions here have nothing to do with them. this discussion is focused on those who would kill/harm others in the name of Islam.everyone knows there is an overwhelming majority of of peaceful Muslims in the world and no one is denying it but even .01 percent of 1.6 billion is a lot of fucking people willing to cause harmno one here has said anything against them.On the contrary, a lot of people are denying it. And Muslims actually have a higher proportion than that who are extremists unfortunately. But that's due to shit social conditions at the root of things, not the religion.http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism#Economic_and_Social_ConditionsVery interesting. So this kind of dismantles both mine and Challenger's points, hm?
According to a Rand Corporation report on counter-terrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (US), terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease.
More than 45% of people convicted of Al Qaeda-associated terrorist offences in the UK have attended university/higher education institutions, or studied/achieved vocational or further education qualifications.
When Muslims and non-Muslims belonging to the same society are faced with the same economic and social conditions, Muslim are sometimes (e.g. as in the following case) infinitely more likely to turn to terrorism than their non-Muslim counterparts.
2011 study finds no link between poverty and support for militant groups, and suggests poorer people are actually less likely to support extremist groups than the more affluent
2/3 of UK terror suspects are from middle-class backgrounds, 1/2 are married (some have children), and 90% can be categorized as ‘sociable’ people with a high number of friends.
Compared with the world's Muslim population as a whole, Muslim terrorists are disproportionately from a higher education, higher income background.
Low-income countries are less affected by terrorism than lower middle-income countries
[edit]Sunni Muslim terrorists committed more than 70% (8,886) of the 12,533 terrorist murders in 2011. Note that the figure of 8,886 only covers the deaths caused by Sunni (i.e. orthodox) Muslim terrorists. Therefore, considering that the total figure includes deaths caused by Shi'ite Muslim terrorists, The Religion Of Peace's count of 9,015 dead bodies in 2011 is very conservative.
Dalia Mogahed and John Esposito co-authored the book "Who Speaks for Islam" which grew out of a survey conducted by the Gallup polling agency and released in 2008. The authors claim only 7 percent of the world's Muslims are "political radicals" who believe the 9/11 attacks were completely justified. Yet another 29.6 percent think the 9/11 attacks were partially or in some way justified. This takes the total world-wide percentage of Muslims who think the mass-slaughter of innocent non-Muslim (and some Muslim) civilians on 9/11 was either completely, partially or some way justified, up to 36.6 percent, or almost 4 out of every 10 Muslim.
According to an al-Jazeera poll, "moderate Islam" is just an impractical and outdated theory in the Arab world.
More than a third [of Turkish Germans] insisted that if it serves the Islamic community, they are ready to use violence against nonbelievers. Almost 40 percent said that Zionism, the European Union and the United States threaten Islam."[37]July 2005
43.5 percent of Indonesian Muslims (approximately 87 million) ready to wage war for their faith
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 04, 2015, 09:29:37 PMQuote from: Sly Instinct on May 04, 2015, 09:27:13 PMQuote from: Not Comms Officer on May 04, 2015, 08:32:34 PMQuote from: Jocephalopod on May 04, 2015, 08:30:23 PMsorry to butt in here but why are we veering off and talking about representing Muslims? the actions here have nothing to do with them. this discussion is focused on those who would kill/harm others in the name of Islam.everyone knows there is an overwhelming majority of of peaceful Muslims in the world and no one is denying it but even .01 percent of 1.6 billion is a lot of fucking people willing to cause harmno one here has said anything against them.On the contrary, a lot of people are denying it. And Muslims actually have a higher proportion than that who are extremists unfortunately. But that's due to shit social conditions at the root of things, not the religion.http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Terrorism#Economic_and_Social_ConditionsVery interesting. So this kind of dismantles both mine and Challenger's points, hm?It dismantles your argument that social conditions/poverty lead/cause terrorism and that religion plays little to no role.QuoteAccording to a Rand Corporation report on counter-terrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense (US), terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease.QuoteMore than 45% of people convicted of Al Qaeda-associated terrorist offences in the UK have attended university/higher education institutions, or studied/achieved vocational or further education qualifications.QuoteWhen Muslims and non-Muslims belonging to the same society are faced with the same economic and social conditions, Muslim are sometimes (e.g. as in the following case) infinitely more likely to turn to terrorism than their non-Muslim counterparts.Quote2011 study finds no link between poverty and support for militant groups, and suggests poorer people are actually less likely to support extremist groups than the more affluentQuote2/3 of UK terror suspects are from middle-class backgrounds, 1/2 are married (some have children), and 90% can be categorized as ‘sociable’ people with a high number of friends.QuoteCompared with the world's Muslim population as a whole, Muslim terrorists are disproportionately from a higher education, higher income background.QuoteLow-income countries are less affected by terrorism than lower middle-income countriesQuote[edit]Sunni Muslim terrorists committed more than 70% (8,886) of the 12,533 terrorist murders in 2011. Note that the figure of 8,886 only covers the deaths caused by Sunni (i.e. orthodox) Muslim terrorists. Therefore, considering that the total figure includes deaths caused by Shi'ite Muslim terrorists, The Religion Of Peace's count of 9,015 dead bodies in 2011 is very conservative.
Let's get one thing straight. Terrorism, hate crime and related ideologies are not a function of economic deprivation, social exclusion or mental illness.
-stuff added in the edit-
Quote from: Sly Instinct on May 04, 2015, 09:45:57 PM-stuff added in the edit-There is also the part of "At the time they joined jihad, the terrorists were not very religious. They only became religious once they joined the jihad." implying that religion wasn't so much of the motivating factor in them joining. So what do they join jihadist groups for then?
Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 09:51:57 PMLet's get one thing straight. Terrorism, hate crime and related ideologies are not a function of economic deprivation, social exclusion or mental illness.Not trying to argue, but do you have a link that debunks these myths?
Quote from: Sir Mav of House Rick on May 04, 2015, 10:00:03 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 09:51:57 PMLet's get one thing straight. Terrorism, hate crime and related ideologies are not a function of economic deprivation, social exclusion or mental illness.Not trying to argue, but do you have a link that debunks these myths?Sly Instinct posted one that debunks all of them.
Quote from: Not Comms Officer on May 04, 2015, 10:00:44 PMQuote from: Sir Mav of House Rick on May 04, 2015, 10:00:03 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 09:51:57 PMLet's get one thing straight. Terrorism, hate crime and related ideologies are not a function of economic deprivation, social exclusion or mental illness.Not trying to argue, but do you have a link that debunks these myths?Sly Instinct posted one that debunks all of them.I should have been following this thread more closely. I'll check it out.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 09:51:57 PMLet's get one thing straight. Terrorism, hate crime and related ideologies are not a function of economic deprivation, social exclusion or mental illness.Not trying to argue, but do you know of a link that debunks these myths?
The paper investigates whether there is a causal link between poverty or low education and participation in politically motivated violence and terrorist activities. After presenting a discussion of theoretical issues, we review evidence on the determinants of hate crimes. This literature finds that the occurrence of hate crimes is largely independent of economic conditions. Next we analyze data on support for attacks against Israeli targets from public opinion polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These polls indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher education and higher living standards. The core contribution of the paper is a statistical analysis of the determinants of participation in Hezbollah militant activities in Lebanon. The evidence we have assembled suggests that having a living standard above the poverty line or a secondary school or higher education is positively associated with participation in Hezbollah. We also find that Israeli Jewish settlers who attacked Palestinians in the West Bank in the early 1980s were overwhelmingly from high-paying occupations. The conclusion speculates on why economic conditions and education are largely unrelated to participation in, and support for, terrorism.
The contest was described as a "free speech" event by its sponsor, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as an active anti-Muslim group. It offered a $10,000 top prize and featured Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who is known for his anti-Muslim views, as its speaker.
Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott issued a statement late Sunday calling the shooting "senseless." He said Texas authorities were "actively investigating to determine the cause and scope" of the attack.
Quote from: Sir Mav of House Rick on May 04, 2015, 10:00:03 PMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 09:51:57 PMLet's get one thing straight. Terrorism, hate crime and related ideologies are not a function of economic deprivation, social exclusion or mental illness.Not trying to argue, but do you know of a link that debunks these myths?Oh God, I'm going to have to trawl through my database of links at 4 in the morning. I'll just give you an NBER paper on the issue:QuoteThe paper investigates whether there is a causal link between poverty or low education and participation in politically motivated violence and terrorist activities. After presenting a discussion of theoretical issues, we review evidence on the determinants of hate crimes. This literature finds that the occurrence of hate crimes is largely independent of economic conditions. Next we analyze data on support for attacks against Israeli targets from public opinion polls conducted in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. These polls indicate that support for violent attacks does not decrease among those with higher education and higher living standards. The core contribution of the paper is a statistical analysis of the determinants of participation in Hezbollah militant activities in Lebanon. The evidence we have assembled suggests that having a living standard above the poverty line or a secondary school or higher education is positively associated with participation in Hezbollah. We also find that Israeli Jewish settlers who attacked Palestinians in the West Bank in the early 1980s were overwhelmingly from high-paying occupations. The conclusion speculates on why economic conditions and education are largely unrelated to participation in, and support for, terrorism.I'll find more if you want, but I really can't be bothered unless you're going to have an existential crisis if I don't.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 10:27:59 AMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:25:00 AMIt's called "Talk shit get hit". You're a disgusting person. Being morally right doesn't make someone "disgusting". Being a bigot however, does.
Quote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:25:00 AMIt's called "Talk shit get hit". You're a disgusting person.
It's called "Talk shit get hit".
Quote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:29:10 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 10:27:59 AMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:25:00 AMIt's called "Talk shit get hit". You're a disgusting person. Being morally right doesn't make someone "disgusting". Being a bigot however, does.>I think murdering someone over a drawing is wrong >bigot
Quote from: SexyBarracuda on May 05, 2015, 07:16:31 PMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:29:10 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 10:27:59 AMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:25:00 AMIt's called "Talk shit get hit". You're a disgusting person. Being morally right doesn't make someone "disgusting". Being a bigot however, does.>I think murdering someone over a drawing is wrong >bigot> Not realising I was trolling Meta
Quote from: Magos Domina on May 06, 2015, 04:02:12 AMQuote from: SexyBarracuda on May 05, 2015, 07:16:31 PMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:29:10 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 10:27:59 AMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:25:00 AMIt's called "Talk shit get hit". You're a disgusting person. Being morally right doesn't make someone "disgusting". Being a bigot however, does.>I think murdering someone over a drawing is wrong >bigot> Not realising I was trolling Metasometimes it's hard to tell w/ you
Quote from: Magos Domina on May 06, 2015, 04:02:12 AMQuote from: SexyBarracuda on May 05, 2015, 07:16:31 PMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:29:10 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on May 04, 2015, 10:27:59 AMQuote from: Magos Domina on May 04, 2015, 10:25:00 AMIt's called "Talk shit get hit". You're a disgusting person. Being morally right doesn't make someone "disgusting". Being a bigot however, does.>I think murdering someone over a drawing is wrong >bigot> Not realising I was trolling Meta
I'd make a joke about the french not being able to draw their white flag fast enough but Meta would probably pull a Deci.
Quote from: Magos Domina on May 06, 2015, 03:33:01 PM I'd make a joke about the french not being able to draw their white flag fast enough but Meta would probably pull a Deci.No I'd just point out how each of the 3 million individuals who took part in the Republican Marches to celebrate freedom of expression are twice the individual you will ever be. Charlie Hebdo are martyrs. Vive la France.
"Draw Muhammad" shooting in Garland Texas
