A voice of reason…

[Solus]

Seeing all this furor over cartoons on both sides of the issues. Isn’t time everyone calm down and start thinking rationally. It’s not just Muslims who are overreacting to this whole cartoon farce.

I remember 9/11 back then I was young and my immediate thought was “lets” nuke mecca and medina show those damn muslims who do they think are dealing with. I think I about 16. That was my emotional childish nationationlistic gut reaction.

Age has brought wisdom you must look at the big picture. Forget your own nation and look at yourself as a human being a small part of a greater whole. Otherwise you join the ranks of countless others have who have made the same mistakes in the past. Of endless examples look at ancient greece. Forgive me I’m bit sketcky on my precise details of history but scocrates was the one voice of dissent in the war between Athens (and I forget the other country). Perhaps the greatest thinker of all time put to death for disagreeing with the majority. Always we must remain rational, do not get caught up in fervor.

Anger accomplishes nothing, scapegoating accomphsies nothing. All this veiled muslim bashing I see here is ridiclous. How many of you actually know muslims? How do you know what the average muslim feels or thinks on this issue. To brand a whole group of people as terrorits is preposterous. We must distance our selves from these events try be an impartial obsever only then you remain somewhat objective.

I don’t know the answer to problem of religious extremeists but blaming all muslems creating an us VS them enviroment is not the way to go.

[TragicMonkey]

I'll just wade through the strawmen to point out that Socrates was put to death for corrupting the youth of the city and for atheism, not for being "the one voice of dissent in the war". The war, by the way, was long over with at the time of Socrates' trial. He had fought in it as a soldier when he was younger.

[Jas]

Originally Posted by Solus

Seeing all this furor over cartoons on both sides of the issues. Isn’t time everyone calm down and start thinking rationally. It’s not just Muslims who are overreacting to this whole cartoon farce.

I remember 9/11 back then I was young and my immediate thought was “lets” nuke mecca and medina show those damn muslims who do they think are dealing with. I think I about 16. That was my emotional childish nationationlistic gut reaction.

Twin towers vs. editorial cartoons.

Why didn't I think of that analogy?

[Solus]

Screw it ok MY history is bloody lousy! It was some general I was thinking of not socrates HEh but still better than 99% of population I take soliance in that.

My point IS though I seems like people here and everywhere I look are overreacting competely. It’s out of line, now it’s suddenly ok to make fun of mulisms “we’ are no better than they are and I hope I’m not the only person that sees this.

My point on mentioning 9/11 is that we should not overreact we need to be reasonable kneejerk reactions have caused great harm in the past. I was caught in a fevor once before I learned to moderate myself that's why I mentioned nuking mecca and medina that's the problem of losing yourself to anger and nationalism.

We are all human beings the “our” culture vs theirs is not productive. It leads to wars and other ghastly things. And I missed big on the socrates thing but I at least can admit I'm an idiot sometimes

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Solus

Screw it ok MY history is bloody lousy! It was some general I thinking of not socrates HEh but still better than 99% of population I take soliance in that.

My point IS though I seems like people here are overracting competely.

That is your opinion. Some others here share it. Still others do not. Repeating it will not make it so. If you have a substantive argument to make in favor of proving your opinion to be the correct one, do so.

Quote:

It’s out of line now it’s suddenly ok to make fun of mulisms “we’ are no better than they are and I hope I’m not the only person that sees this.

And who has been "making fun" of Muslims? Is criticism of Islam "making fun"? Is criticism of the actions of fanatics "making fun"?

Quote:

My point on mentioning 9/11 is that we should not overreact we need to be reasonable kneejerk reactions have caused great harm in the past.

No kidding. The difference of opinion is over what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate reaction.

Quote:

I was caught in a fevor once before I learned to moderate myself that's why I mentioned nuking mecca and medina that's the problem of losing yourself to anger and nationalism.

We are human beings the “our” culture vs theirs is not productive. It leads to wars and other ghastly things.

You interpret this as a question of nationalism? That is curious. Why?

And as for "us versus them", it seems to be that the ones holding that view are the ones burning embassies. Unproductive? Maybe a little! As for "wars and other ghastly things", sometimes they are necessary.

The problem is that standing there bleating "how dreadful!" accomplishes little.

[Jas]

Originally Posted by Solus

My point on mentioning 9/11 is that we should not overreact we need to be reasonable kneejerk reactions have caused great harm in the past. I was caught in a fevor once before I learned to moderate myself that's why I mentioned nuking mecca and medina that's the problem of losing yourself to anger and nationalism.

I am quite certain that 9/11 did not see the Americans reacting in this manner. There were some incidents, but they were pretty roundly condemned.

ETA: How many embassies were firebombed by Jews after an arab newspaper declared that purim treats were made from the blood of arabs and christians, btw? And how many threats have been made to behead Betty Bowers? Or the creators of Landover Baptist, for that matter? Normal Bob Smith?

[Solus]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

That is your opinion. Some others here share it. Still others do not. Repeating it will not make it so. If you have a substantive argument to make in favor of proving your opinion to be the correct one, do so.



And who has been "making fun" of Muslims? Is criticism of Islam "making fun"? Is criticism of the actions of fanatics "making fun"?



No kidding. The difference of opinion is over what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate reaction.



You interpret this as a question of nationalism? That is curious. Why?

And as for "us versus them", it seems to be that the ones holding that view are the ones burning embassies. Unproductive? Maybe a little! As for "wars and other ghastly things", sometimes they are necessary.

The problem is that standing there bleating "how dreadful!" accomplishes little.

OK I'll tackle this one

That is your opinion. Some others here share it. Still others do not. Repeating it will not make it so. If you have a substantive argument to make in favor of proving your opinion to be the correct one, do so.

I admit at the moment I do not have a substantive arguement to make in favor of proving my position... To do that would requrie I collect data, in essense write a research paper attempting to prove in a concrete matter my suppostion.

Now I'd be willing to do that provided I get a date from a nice girl, or a large montary compensation. Otherwise I'm not willing to invest the time to write a 20 pg research paper to prove my point so...


Next then:

And who has been "making fun" of Muslims? Is criticism of Islam "making fun"? Is criticism of the actions of fanatics "making fun"?

It seems now it's ok to call all muslims terrorists I see statements here for like this example: if the moderates are not speaking up all muslims are terrorists that's what I mean.

next

The problem is that standing there bleating "how dreadful!" accomplishes little.

True though my point is to provide some perspective that you stand away from your own culture or even humanness and look at the issue objectively.
and I'm glad indeed that I'm not in a postion of resposabilty to decide this issues I would go insane. I have no solutions to this problem

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Solus

It seems now it's ok to call all muslims terrorists I see statements here for like this example: if the moderates are not speaking up all muslims are terrorists that's what I mean.

There is concern that the moderates are not speaking up.

That does not mean that all Muslims are terrorists, if you know how to think.

I suspect you do know how to think, and you are just using a straw man.

In any event, this is not a voice of reason. It is a voice of the Middle Ground. And frankly, the Middle Ground would involve only half of the embassies' getting burned down.

[Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Jas

Twin towers vs. editorial cartoons.

Why didn't I think of that analogy?

Not to mention that nobody torched the Iraqi or Afghani or any other Muslim embassy over it.

[Jas]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Not to mention that nobody torched the Iraqi or Afghani or any other Muslim embassy over it.

Yes, the similarities between the two are indeed striking.

[Solus]

Damn I really need to be more articulate here it seems ambiguity and vaguness are not the modus operdi I see.

For future reference I will be competely clear in want I mean in or I won’t bother posting such controversal topics. I actually have clear ideas in my head but it’s hard to articlate in just few mintues so instead I write large sweeping general statements without being specfeic.

Ok people next time I post a controversal topic I’ll be sure to be prepared for serious debate I can’t just give 10% here it seems.

Or maybe I need to find a less intelligent forum ah but I like a challenge.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Jas

Yes, the similarities between the two are indeed striking.

Yep. Thousands of people dead on 9/11. Thousands of innocent soybeans killed to make printer's ink for cartoons. Won't someone please think of the soybeans?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Solus

I remember 9/11 back then I was young and my immediate thought was “lets” nuke mecca and medina show those damn muslims who do they think are dealing with. I think I about 16. That was my emotional childish nationationlistic gut reaction.

Which is why important decisions on foreign policy are not left to 16 year olds.

However, I fail to see how a large number of angry and shocked messages on an internet forum constitute an “over-reaction” to global riots, death threats, and burning embassies.

[Kopji]

hi Solus,
Moderate Muslims who share my views are in jail for trying to be reasonable. Moderate Christian voices who hold my views have been silenced.

I consider myself sorta middle of the road when I say we have all been held hostage by the priests and mullahs for much too long.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Kopji

hi Solus,
Moderate Muslims who share my views are in jail for trying to be reasonable. Moderate Christian voices who hold my views have been silenced.

And if that be true, nota bene it would be the moderates that are colling their heels in jail. What would that say?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Solus

Age has brought wisdom you must look at the big picture.

Let's see: you're about 21 years old, you have trouble with the English language, and you're telling us to listen to the pearls of wisdom that your age has brought. Might want to lay off the condescension.

Quote:

Anger accomplishes nothing,

That's a silly platitude. Our nation is one founded on anger. Without anger, we would have simply paid those taxes without representation. We would have forgotton the Alamo. And December 7 would live in obscurity.

Quote:

scapegoating accomphsies nothing.

Not if you're actually being attacked by goats.

Quote:

All this veiled muslim bashing I see here is ridiclous.

Veiled? What veil? I think the Muslim basging has been rather open.

Quote:

How many of you actually know muslims?

I don't know any Nazis. Doesn't keep me from bashing them.

Quote:

How do you know what the average muslim feels or thinks on this issue.

"What impression Muslims as a whole give to me" seems as good a measure of "average" as any. Perhaps we should have polled German citizenry on their opinion of the Nazis prior to invading?

Quote:

To brand a whole group of people as terrorits is preposterous.

So it would be preposterous to call Al Qaeda terrorists?

Quote:

I don’t know the answer to problem of religious extremeists but blaming all muslems creating an us VS them enviroment is not the way to go.

Assigning responsibility is the way to go. Every Muslim is responsible for the excesses of the religion. Clearly, there is a lack of will among the "average" Muslim to stop this. It's rather silly to blame us for creating an "us VS them enviroment" when they're attacking us.

[schplurg]

Originally Posted by Solus

Damn I really need to be more articulate here it seems ambiguity and vaguness are not the modus operdi I see.

Correct-amoondoooo! This is a skeptics forum.

Quote:

For future reference I will be competely clear in want I mean in or I won’t bother posting such controversal topics. I actually have clear ideas in my head but it’s hard to articlate in just few mintues so instead I write large sweeping general statements without being specfeic.

Ok people next time I post a controversal topic I’ll be sure to be prepared for serious debate I can’t just give 10% here it seems.

Or maybe I need to find a less intelligent forum ah but I like a challenge.

Awww stick around. Welcome to the forum!

[Solus]

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

[epepke]

Originally Posted by Solus

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

Somebody call the...

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Solus

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

Yeah, this was my exact reaction to my first thread 10,000 posts ago. I wrote Linda and demanded that I be removed from the forum. Of course I thought better about it.

It is your choice but if you stick around you might actually learn something worthwile.

Welcome to the forum. But if this doesn't help then I will give you my standard response.

Originally Posted by RandFan

JREF isn't for everyone. We have a nasty habit of not suffering foolish ideas gladly. If you are looking for a caring environment where all ideas are nurtured and respected then you are definitely in the wrong place. You might want to try www.mylittlepony.com. They don't have a forum but they do have lots of pastel colors.

[Skeptic]

Anger accomplishes nothing

Anger, far from accomplishing nothing, is ESSENTIAL for justice and action. Aristotle and Plato already realized that a sense of justice is inherently emotional: it essentially involves anger at those who do wrong.

It is correct to hate and be angry at those who did 9/11. It is correct to hate Hitler and be angry at what he had done. Examples could be multiplied.

To have no use for anger is to have no use for justice. It is the ultimate hubris: to "refuse to give in to anger" means simply that nothing--including the deaths of thousands--is really important enough to actually get emotionally worked up about.

But the same people who do so do become quite emotionally upset and angry if they, or any of their friends or relatives, are unjustly killed or hurt (and quite rightly so, of course).

The whole "I will not give in to anger" thing really means "I will not give in to anger when innocent people I don't personally know are killed--if they didn't know me, they couldn't be important enough for me to feel upset over!"

[Jas]

Originally Posted by Solus

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

Um, maybe you should take look at some of the other posts in politics, I'm sure I could find some links for you.

Quote:

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written...

Then why post it? In politics, dealing with this subject?

Quote:

...but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

Welcome to politics.

(but yeah, when you compare 9/11 to some cartoons, it merits it)

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Anger accomplishes nothing

Anger, far from accomplishing nothing, is ESSENTIAL for justice and action. Aristotle and Plato already realized that a sense of justice is inherently emotional: it essentially involves anger at those who do wrong.

It is correct to hate and be angry at those who did 9/11. It is correct to hate Hitler and be angry at what he had done. Examples could be multiplied.

To have no use for anger is to have no use for justice. It is the ultimate hubris: to "refuse to give in to anger" means simply that nothing--including the deaths of thousands--is really important enough to actually get emotionally worked up about.

But the same people who do so do become quite emotionally upset and angry if they, or any of their friends or relatives, are unjustly killed or hurt (and quite rightly so, of course).

The whole "I will not give in to anger" thing really means "I will not give in to anger when innocent people I don't personally know are killed--if they didn't know me, they couldn't be important enough for me to feel upset over!"

Well, I'm pretty sure those Muslims storming embassies and shouting "Death to x" were genuinely angry and upset. And needless to say, they did give in to it. So what exactly is the problem if, as you say,

Quote:

to "refuse to give in to anger" means simply that nothing--including the deaths of thousands--is really important enough to actually get emotionally worked up about.

Aren't all of us saying these Muslims should not give in to their anger (because rationally it's not worth it) and exercise some self-restraint?
We may not agree with their anger, but to them it's a very real emotion.

[aerosolben]

Originally Posted by egslim

Aren't all of us saying these Muslims should not give in to their anger (because rationally it's not worth it) and exercise some self-restraint?
We may not agree with their anger, but to them it's a very real emotion.

Even if the emotion is real, the resulting action is completely unjustified. Tolerance and restraint are also virtues not to be overlooked.

[egslim]

Exactly my point. Both tolerance and restraint are based on reason, not emotion.

Also giving in to anger, even if justified, may have serious adverse consequences for oneself.

[BPSCG]

Solus -

Welcome to the forum. As you've already discovered, this is a tough crowd, sometimes even a mean one. Nobody here will applaud you because you're young or beautiful or rich. But neither will they curse you for being old, ugly, or poor.

What they will do is poke and prod and look for the weak spot in every post you put up. If you don't have your facts straight, you'll find out in a hurry. If your logic is faulty, you'll get a quick lesson, with some Latin phrases thrown in (tu quoque, ad hominem...). If you make arguments based on anything but facts and reason, we'll slap you around like we was all your daddy.

So why stick around? Because this is the place where you find out how clearly you can write, and how clearly you can think. I flatter myself that I think clearly and write well, but I've been brought up short more than once here because I wrote something in haste, choosing neither my words nor my thoughts carefully. You've already experienced that, and you sound like you've learned from the experience, to which I can only say, "Bravo!" A lot of people have posted here for a while and discovered the weather was too rough, and departed, taking with them their mushy thinking and mushy writing. This can be the place where you hone your thinking and writing to a coruscating edge. If you're not afraid.

Again, welcome.

Did he really say "coruscating"...?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by Solus

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

Your original post implied that posters here are immature, irrational, self-centered bigots. And you wonder why your are not warmly received?

Originally Posted by egslim

Well, I'm pretty sure those Muslims storming embassies and shouting "Death to x" were genuinely angry and upset. And needless to say, they did give in to it. So what exactly is the problem if, as you say,

Well, the original claim was that anger accomplishes nothing. Your post is simply yet another counter example to this claim: Muslim did accomplish something. As for your question, it's rather fallacious reasoning. Simply because we don't think that all anger is bad, does not mean we think all anger is good.

Quote:

Aren't all of us saying these Muslims should not give in to their anger (because rationally it's not worth it) and exercise some self-restraint?

Muslims are free to be angry. They are not free to express that anger through violence.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Well, the original claim was that anger accomplishes nothing. Your post is simply yet another counter example to this claim: Muslim did accomplish something. As for your question, it's rather fallacious reasoning. Simply because we don't think that all anger is bad, does not mean we think all anger is good.

Muslims are free to be angry. They are not free to express that anger through violence.

I wasn't responding to the original claim though, but to Sceptics post. With

Quote:

Anger, far from accomplishing nothing, is ESSENTIAL for justice and action.
[...]
To have no use for anger is to have no use for justice.

Anger may have formed the basis for justice, but fortunately we have progresses beyond that. Nowadays justice is dispenced by a judge and possibly a jury, through reason - not anger.
Basically, my point was to show anger is not as essential or important as Scepic claimed.
And I would love to see an example where restraint of anger in favor of reason is actually a bad thing. Reason can be used to dispence justice, as is demonstrated all the time by our legal system.
Of course I'm kind of cheating, since any such example would have to be supported by arguments of why this is so - thereby demonstrating reason would have arrived at the same conclusion as anger.

I completely agree the statement that anger accomplishes nothing is silly.

[BPSCG]

Anger is an emotion and therefore a hindrance to rational thought. It may serve as a spur to action, but when it occupies the mind in contemplation of action, it often leads to ruinous results. How many times have you said or done something in the heat of anger, only to regret it later? The guy who said, "When angry, count to ten" knew what he was talking about.

[Lukretius]

Originally Posted by Solus

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

Never mind the "hostility" - it's kind'a "the name of the game". Give some bashing back and be ready to accept if somebody has a better argument or a better fact than you, and you'll be fine.

Welcome to the forum.

Oh - and if you don't like heavy beating, you're absolutely right... don't post half worked posts

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by egslim

Anger may have formed the basis for justice, but fortunately we have progresses beyond that. Nowadays justice is dispenced by a judge and possibly a jury, through reason - not anger.

It's dispensed through reason, but it's also dispensed because of anger. Laws against murder are an expression of society's anger towards murderers.

Quote:

Basically, my point was to show anger is not as essential or important as Scepic claimed.

Laws dispense justice, true. But the laws themselves come from anger.

BTW, I think he's American. It's spelled "Skeptic".

Quote:

And I would love to see an example where restraint of anger in favor of reason is actually a bad thing.

What about kidnapping for ransom? The rational response for each individual is to pay the ransom. But society would be better off if they were to react with anger, and do everything they can to catch the kidnappers, even if it meant losing their loved one. If everyone did that, then no one would engage in kidnapping for ransom, because they would realize that there's no money in it.

Originally Posted by Lukretius

Oh - and if you don't like heavy beating, you're absolutely right... don't post half worked posts

I wouldn't say this is a heavy beating. Relatively speaking, this is mild disapproval.

[kittynh]

It's tough here, but hey this wasn't nearly the treatment the El Greco got for daring to post that some of the attendees at The Amazing Meeting were fashion challenged.

I'm totally serious.

Which this being a forum of course is not.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Solus

Age has brought wisdom ...

More age will bring more wisdom. I would have said the same things you are saying back when I was your age. However, I have lived another of your lifetimes since that time.

[egslim]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

It's dispensed through reason, but it's also dispensed because of anger. Laws against murder are an expression of society's anger towards murderers.

Anger against murder is one explanation. Another one is to reason that a society needs to condemn murder for it to prosper.

Considering there are many modern "exceptions" to laws against murder - necessary self defense is allowed, mental illnesses are treated instead of sent to prison. Such exceptions follow logically from punishment because of reason, not because of anger.

Quote:

What about kidnapping for ransom? The rational response for each individual is to pay the ransom. But society would be better off if they were to react with anger, and do everything they can to catch the kidnappers, even if it meant losing their loved one. If everyone did that, then no one would engage in kidnapping for ransom, because they would realize that there's no money in it.

I wouldn't say paying the ransom is rational for the individual, since it doesn't guarantee they will have their loved ones returned. Going after them they will need the rest of society, though.
Also, paying up makes one a prime target for the next attempt.

But we are social animals, so if our society prospers everyone benefits. Therefore it sometimes makes rational sense to sacrifice yourself, if that brings greater benefits to your relatives and loved ones.
Other examples would be people like firefighters, soldiers and policemen, who expose themselves to greater risk so others may benefit.

Basically I'm arguing for reason from a 'selfish gene'-perspective.

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by Solus

What’s with the personal attacks and hostility here did I insult anyone of you?
I don’t understand this hostility. I’m simply posting my point of view and I get insulted for it. Forgive me for having an opinon that is contray to the majority of people on this forum.

And yeah it’s not particually well thought out or written but I never thought I’d get such hostile reaction or I might put more thought into it. But I just don’t understand all the criticism and insults as I don’t think I’ve written anything that merits it.

Kiddo...I know the rhetorical pool-fight we have going on here looks fun from afar. But take care. The water is deep and sharks regularly pick off those misfortunates who wade in unprepared.

Write your 20 page research paper and come on back with facts and educated opinions.

Facts and evidence may be used as a floatation device....

-z

PS: Never tell a group like this how young you are. We'll figure it out eventually; but the sharks love the young. They're firm yet crunchy...best not to announce yourself to them too loudly.

Welcome to the forum!