why people become Islamic extremists...

[moralist]

Those aren't me...

I'm what subjectively experiences objective reality... but I can never be objective reality.

Greg

The "me" would be defined by the "you" as "non-corporeal?"

This is a serious question and I am certainly not attempting to be flippant with you.

A...

Of course, Adam... and the answer is yes.

"...an obvious lie that they're only physical matter?"

Greg

The essential entity that the "we" perceive as "Greg," is the corporeal shell that exists objectively as part of reality.

Correct?

Sorry, no.

The essential entity that you subjectively perceive as Greg by the essential entity which is Adam is just another subjective being exactly like yourself.

Now the physical matter of Greg does obey all of the physical laws of objective reality...

...just as the essential being who is Greg answers personally to all of the moral laws of objective reality.

Greg

[moralist]

That danged Ayn Rand. She was an atheist, and inspired the creation of this forum.

Ayn Rand acknowledged objective reality...

...and that's good enough for me.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Ah, yes. The "objective reality" of no God.

Seriously--I mean more seriously--the Pope's position on climate charge has been challenged by the most powerful Cardinal in the Vatican as violating the principle of the autonomy of science from the religious doctrine of the Church. (The Pope is supposed to keep his mouth shut.)

--Brant

so, you and I are with the Cardinal and William is with the Pope--I guess it figures

[Brant Gaede]

Wow, this thread got ugly and insulting pretty quick...

@Brant, sorry I don't accept your paranoid definition of Islam. Islam has been around for around 1300 years and has varied in its tendency towards violence over those years. There's no reason to believe it will be violent permanently. Ultimately Islam did initiate force against Christianity, but then decades later Christianity initiated even more force against Islam. It's a stupid conflict and while one side may be better than another rational people shouldn't take sides in conflicts between the irrational.

@Selene, more paranoid nonsense. No need to go on a crusade to eliminate a philosophy based on the actions of 1% of the adherents. Furthermore if you look into the history there's quite a bit of US meddling in the Middle East which these terrorists use as justifications. Not that I expect you to actually look into that, you'll probably just attack the way I think and spout more irrelevant facts that don't counter my argument.

So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now?

I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries.

I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements

--Brant

BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it?

[moralist]

Ah, yes. The "objective reality" of no God.

...or more precisely "objective reality" as God.

Whatever you have to answer to is God to you.

I have little to say about the Pope other than to say he has little to do with God.

Greg

[william.scherk]

Seriously--I mean more seriously--the Pope's position on climate charge has been challenged by the most powerful Cardinal in the Vatican as violating the principle of the autonomy of science from the religious doctrine of the Church.

Help us out here with a link or something, wouldja? Please ...

[Mikee]

Seriously--I mean more seriously--the Pope's position on climate charge has been challenged by the most powerful Cardinal in the Vatican as violating the principle of the autonomy of science from the religious doctrine of the Church.

Help us out here with a link or something, wouldja? Please ...

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/07/17/cardinal-george-pell-takes-swing-pope-francis-environmental-encyclical/

[william.scherk]

Thanks, Mike.

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks.

[william.scherk]

I found an interesting article (transcript of a speech) Pell put together for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Seems he is up to his boots in the larger debate. I mean, not afraid to offer his own scientific perspective:

One Christian Perspective on Climate Change
2011 Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture
Westminster Cathedral Hall, London
Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney

[RobinReborn]

Wow, this thread got ugly and insulting pretty quick...

@Brant, sorry I don't accept your paranoid definition of Islam. Islam has been around for around 1300 years and has varied in its tendency towards violence over those years. There's no reason to believe it will be violent permanently. Ultimately Islam did initiate force against Christianity, but then decades later Christianity initiated even more force against Islam. It's a stupid conflict and while one side may be better than another rational people shouldn't take sides in conflicts between the irrational.

@Selene, more paranoid nonsense. No need to go on a crusade to eliminate a philosophy based on the actions of 1% of the adherents. Furthermore if you look into the history there's quite a bit of US meddling in the Middle East which these terrorists use as justifications. Not that I expect you to actually look into that, you'll probably just attack the way I think and spout more irrelevant facts that don't counter my argument.

So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now?

I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries.

I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements

--Brant

BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it?

Wow, this thread got ugly and insulting pretty quick...

@Brant, sorry I don't accept your paranoid definition of Islam. Islam has been around for around 1300 years and has varied in its tendency towards violence over those years. There's no reason to believe it will be violent permanently. Ultimately Islam did initiate force against Christianity, but then decades later Christianity initiated even more force against Islam. It's a stupid conflict and while one side may be better than another rational people shouldn't take sides in conflicts between the irrational.

@Selene, more paranoid nonsense. No need to go on a crusade to eliminate a philosophy based on the actions of 1% of the adherents. Furthermore if you look into the history there's quite a bit of US meddling in the Middle East which these terrorists use as justifications. Not that I expect you to actually look into that, you'll probably just attack the way I think and spout more irrelevant facts that don't counter my argument.

So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now?

I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries.

I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements

--Brant

BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it?

Wow, this thread got ugly and insulting pretty quick...

@Brant, sorry I don't accept your paranoid definition of Islam. Islam has been around for around 1300 years and has varied in its tendency towards violence over those years. There's no reason to believe it will be violent permanently. Ultimately Islam did initiate force against Christianity, but then decades later Christianity initiated even more force against Islam. It's a stupid conflict and while one side may be better than another rational people shouldn't take sides in conflicts between the irrational.

@Selene, more paranoid nonsense. No need to go on a crusade to eliminate a philosophy based on the actions of 1% of the adherents. Furthermore if you look into the history there's quite a bit of US meddling in the Middle East which these terrorists use as justifications. Not that I expect you to actually look into that, you'll probably just attack the way I think and spout more irrelevant facts that don't counter my argument.

So, which side is better--now--and why and what should the better side do considering what is doing--now?

I rant to vent, not because I'm paranoid. All that's needed to for Muslims to rip out the fascism infesting practical, on the ground--now--Islam and/or let it be ripped off them, then we can have peace which is not submission. I have consistently come out against any religious war, but I don't mind pointing out that of the major monotheistic religions Islam is the worst. It's a religion justifying conquest until there's nothing left to conquer. The only problem is that conquesting is also used against fellow Muslims, so it's doctrine is in effect one of perpetual warfare, but in reality only whenever enough Muslims get up enough energy for it, which might take centuries.

I also rant to bait you into more of your easily refuted statements

--Brant

BTW, WTF are you replying to?--my rant isn't on this thread, is it?

Unfortunately individual Muslims can't do much to rip fascism out of Islam. Islam has been divided whereas once it was (relatively) united... it's grown much more violent since it has been divided.

Islam had a relatively short period of time when it was better than Christianity of Judaism, I don't think it's inherently worse than either though right now it clearly is. In practice Christianity has conquered more and destroyed more, though that is in part because its' been around longer. This perpetual conquest isn't inherent to Islam, Islam used to be mainly controlled by the Ottoman Empire, it wasn't really a threat then (except to Russia, which is often an enemy of the west).

For the record, it's not clear to me that you've refuted what I've said or understood it... your rant is on this thread.

[Brant Gaede]

Where? I know I did it but it must be elsewhere.

--Brant

[RobinReborn]

#7,16,18,20

[Selene]

I found an interesting article (transcript of a speech) Pell put together for the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Seems he is up to his boots in the larger debate. I mean, not afraid to offer his own scientific perspective:

One Christian Perspective on Climate Change

2011 Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture

Westminster Cathedral Hall, London

Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney

William the freaking Pope is a marxist why are you surprised.

It is somewhat similar to Black Liberation theology, e.g., Reverend Wright.

[moralist]

...the freaking Pope is a marxist...

Secular leftism even infests the Catholic Church.

Greg

[anthony]

It seems an article of faith in societies that for every violent incident there is a societal cause, and then a national witch-hunt ensues: How did 'we let him down'? He must have done it, because of -- his upbringing; a person he met; what he read online; his race; his impoverishment; his lack of education; insufficient gun control; an insult to his religion--etc.etc.

Once sociologists make their pronouncements in the media we can all go away satisfied ... until the next time.

"Radicalization" (that if-fy concept) is much-dependent on the belief that an individual is an empty vessel waiting to be filled with beliefs. I.e., determinism, which usually goes with anti-individualist ideology. By finding 'cause' in external factors, ironically most people may not realise that it is their own determinist faith that is in fact the root cause of the problem, abetting and justifying the surrender of self-responsibility by a perpetrator - "Because of x, he had reduced choice in the matter"..

[Brant Gaede]

#7,16,18,20

Boy, are you at sea. What I was originally referring to was on another thread when I mentioned Mohammad's appetite for sexual congress with little girls. What you are referring to aren't rants, at least not apropos to what we are talking about. 18 and 20 were addressed to Greg and don't concern Islam. 16 was an invitation to discussion no one took me up on. No one even asked me what I was talking about. Also, you went from "rant" to rants. The strong implication is you never knew what you were talking about in the first place.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

Tony, you make some really good points that can be extended to cover all manner of so-called radicalization.

It seems an article of faith in societies that for every violent incident there is a societal cause, and then a national witch-hunt ensues: How did 'we let him down'? He must have done it, because of -- his upbringing; a person he met; what he read online; his race; his impoverishment; his lack of education; insufficient gun control; an insult to his religion--etc.etc.

This fits to a T the kind of explanations given in the aftermath of the mass shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana. The killer, John Russell Houser, is described as a drifter, with a history of mental illness, as a person with 'extreme' views, a Tea Party supporter, as 'unstable,' and a captive of 'abnormal views' ...

CBSNews dug into his life story, and found "he espouses right-wing, reactionary politics. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Houser wrote approvingly of Adolf Hitler, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and the Westboro Baptist Church, and made racist statements about blacks."

"America is so sick that I now believe it to be the enemy of the world." - Comment posted by Rusty Houser on fellowshipoftheminds.com

On the website stateofmind13.com, in the comments of an article about the adoration of Hitler, Rusty Houser wrote:

"Hitler is loved for the results of his pragmatism. There is no question of his being the most successful that ever lived. At this time the US is no more than a financially failing filth farm. Soon the phrase 'ruling with an iron hand' will be palatable anew."

And on a site devoted to the Greek neo-Nazi party, Golden Dawn, he wrote:

"I do not want to discourage the last hope for the best, but you must realize the power of the lone wolf, is the power that can come forth in ALL situations. Look within yourselves."

Once sociologists make their pronouncements in the media we can all go away satisfied ... until the next time.

Yup. In this case he was supposedly a "lone wolf" ... an outlier, a defective, no reason to fear a repeat or copycat.

"Radicalization" (that if-fy concept) is much-dependent on the belief that an individual is an empty vessel waiting to be filled with beliefs. I.e., determinism, which usually goes with anti-individualist ideology.

The explanations can veer off into tropes of illness and infection. See this article, Mass Shootings Are Contagious

Virginia Tech. Sandy Hook. Charleston. Not only are mass shootings tragedies in their own rights, but they also appear to be contagious.

Mass shootings spawn subsequent mass shootings, new research finds. The researchers discovered statistical "clusters" of shootings in which four or more people die, the standard definition of a mass shooting. School shootings also cluster, said study researcher Sherry Towers, a professor of mathematical and computational modeling at Arizona State University.

By finding 'cause' in external factors, ironically most people may not realise that it is their own determinist faith that is in fact the root cause of the problem, abetting and justifying the surrender of self-responsibility by a perpetrator - "Because of x, he had reduced choice in the matter"..

Because of 'contagion,' because of mental illness, because of indoctrination into 'radical views' ...

Until the next time.

Edited July 25, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

18 and 20 were addressed to Greg and don't concern Islam.

You may consider anything addressed to me as being off topic as I'm usually on the road less traveled...

or as perceived by others... out in the tall weeds.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

William,

I don't know anything wrong with the Tea Party respecting the society it lives in--American society. That a nut job joined it doesn't change that in the least.

--Brant

seem like pretty normal and decent people, generally speaking

[william.scherk]

Adam, is it fair, do you think, to ask "how did the shooter become radicalized"?

Your point about Tea Party strikes me as wise and just -- to my eyes the Tea Party phenomenon is grass-roots up, a movement defined by its breadth, without a central organizing politburo (a lot like the Reform movement in Canada, although that movement coalesced into an active political party). But that is just one aspect of the man's grievances and allegiances --.and statements of support. The Daily Caller went with a wide brush:

Louisiana Theater Shooter Praised Fundamentalist Muslims, Signed Up On Tea Party Page, And Quoted Hitler

And in one thread, Houser commented on so-called Muslim “no-go” zones which are said to exist in some neighborhoods in some European cities.

“Bring no-go to the US. I want in. Yes, I am saluting the fundamentalist Muslims. They have stood against evil,” Houser wrote.

And in another, Houser cheered Muslim extremists for defending their religion.

“Yes it’s true, Muslims are alone in shutting down liberals that mock their God. They have my complete Christian respect.”

“I’m with all who hate the filth farm known as the US,” he wrote in another post entitled “Islamists and ‘the right to offend.'”

Money-quote: the USA is a "financially failing filth farm" ...

[Selene]

Adam, is it fair, do you think, to ask "how did the shooter become radicalized"?

Was it asked of the recent Marine/Navy assassin?

How does the questioner define "radicalization" which should be the first question to ask the "journalist?"

A...

[moralist]

It seems an article of faith in societies that for every violent incident there is a societal cause, and then a national witch-hunt ensues: How did 'we let him down'? He must have done it, because of -- his upbringing; a person he met; what he read online; his race; his impoverishment; his lack of education; insufficient gun control; an insult to his religion--etc.etc.

Once sociologists make their pronouncements in the media we can all go away satisfied ... until the next time.

Your finger is placed precisely on the pulse of the issue, Tony.

Typical modern societies look everywhere else for the cause of evil acts...

...except personal responsibility.

Greg

[anthony]

Tony, you make some really good points that can be extended to cover all manner of so-called radicalization.

Yup. In this case he was supposedly a "lone wolf" ... an outlier, a defective, no reason to fear a repeat or copycat.

"Radicalization" (that if-fy concept) is much-dependent on the belief that an individual is an empty vessel waiting to be filled with beliefs. I.e., determinism, which usually goes with anti-individualist ideology.

The explanations can veer off into tropes of illness and infection. See this article, Mass Shootings Are Contagious

Virginia Tech. Sandy Hook. Charleston. Not only are mass shootings tragedies in their own rights, but they also appear to be contagious.

Mass shootings spawn subsequent mass shootings, new research finds. The researchers discovered statistical "clusters" of shootings in which four or more people die, the standard definition of a mass shooting. School shootings also cluster, said study researcher Sherry Towers, a professor of mathematical and computational modeling at Arizona State University.

By finding 'cause' in external factors, ironically most people may not realise that it is their own determinist faith that is in fact the root cause of the problem, abetting and justifying the surrender of self-responsibility by a perpetrator - "Because of x, he had reduced choice in the matter"..

Because of 'contagion,' because of mental illness, because of indoctrination into 'radical views' ...

Until the next time.

Well, Will, unless a demon entered their heads and turned them into obedient killing zombies, those would have to be cases of individuals seeing-and-doing without a moment's pause for what the action of murder means. It can only be extreme evasion of what each knows of the reality of human life, indicating too almost zero "self". What someone called "contagion" I think is actually altruism - in its fundamental sense, the abnegation of the independent mind. Here, in its rawest: copy-catting another's actions. It also could be obedience to others' commands, or consuming others' ideologies.

You enter the 'Insanity Plea' a little early, I think, though it would bear some responsibility. However, far as I know, not too many mass murderers have been found to be certifiably insane, while few of the certifiably insane do commit murders - and millions of people live fairly normal and moral lives without being completely 'sane', psychologically. No? You'll know more than I.

"Indoctrination into radical views" is only another way of saying "radicalization". How is this so-called indoctrination done? Is the target person captured, bound and drugged for a long period, while being hypnotized and filled with evil ideas which force him into murder?

As I've tried to say earlier, it is the very belief in (human) determinism that is part of the problem. When determinism is linked with altruism-collectivism, many members of society will be very quick to justify and explain any act, precisely because of their false notion of causality. In a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, the 'radicalized' killer, steeped in the same ideology, feels himself justified and maybe forgiven in advance. Basically, this neo-mystic fallacy is that to be exposed to evil makes one evil. In our history there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[william.scherk]

Tony, nice post, well grounded in a psychological/individualist matrix. You might have noted I was a bit tongue in cheek to suggest 'contagion' ... or any other determining factor; I was passing along so-called conventional wisdom.

That said, you might enjoy this long article at the XX Committee, from September of last year: What If Everything You Know About Terrorism Is Wrong?

I think you are right that we shouldn't collectivize the description or psycho-social understanding of this killer or that shooter or the other assassin or suicide-murderer. One of the better kinds of analysis of the (ill-posed?) "Radicalization" process comes from the countries like Tunisia where the question is life and death, where so-called radicalization threatens their path to democracy and an open society. The amount of analysis is a lot to plod through, but the non-abstract processes (if process there is in actuality) are one that the society hopes to understand, anticipate, defuse, dismantle, countermand.