Arson Attack On German Paper That Republished Hebdo Cartoons

[Kardia]

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906920]It's just that we fucked up the regions that have a lot of Muslims really good in the past and now we're seeing the results.[/QUOTE]

As if every country with Sharia law in it was fucked up by the west and not Islam.

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;46906886]Although my knowledge of Islam and Middle Eastern culture is limited, the huge downfall of Islam from what I understand was the internal split between the Sunni and Shiites which involved a conflicting view on the line of succession with regards to the Imam who would rule the Umma (Commnity). The catholic church (universal church, not the really Roman Catholic Church,) held meetings to which topics of doctrine could be discussed, debated, and accepted or denied within the Orthodox (Widely accepted doctrine). This would leave room for differing viewpoints to be heard such as Arianism for example, which teaches that God the Son is unequal to the Father. I think this would also void the idea of statesman in this regard because the knowledge is shared, discussed, and for this reason always changing. With the Old Testament being primarily of ancient Jewish customs, traditions, and laws, the Christians are not obligated to follow through with this and is often regarded as a review of prophecy and history. [B]Since the sacrifice of Christ (the perfect sacrifice) pretty much completed the cycle of continuous sacrificial offerings of lamb, because the lamb was not "perfect", the ritual had to be repeated.[/B] The New Testament on the other hand, utilizes what seems to be stories which would have related to the people of the day, since telling the common man (the Greeks, for example in Paul or Peter's case) was not always effective in delivering the point of the message. Salvation in Christianity in general is pretty point blank, simply following the teachings of Christ due to the grace of God already setting the premise for the path to salvation, such as love thy neighbor as many have pointed out, helping the impoverished, protecting family. Catholicism, although I'm not so sure of how it differs in Germany, simply focuses on rituals practiced and revised since the early 12 Christian Church fathers, and in any organization, including religion, delegation is inevitable in such a strict hierarchy. However, since each church is practically under control of the priest who runs it, anything the pope says or declares is pretty much regarded as personal opinion among many Catholics. Similarly to Islam, if an Imam promoted literal Jihad against unbelievers, he will either be denied by the individual Muslim or embraced. So it really is on an individual basis.[/QUOTE][emphasis mine]

The part about agency was more about veneration of/prayers to saints, it's just something that feels "wrong" to me for lack of a better word.
I don't have any particular huge problems with the Catholic church as institution since it's ultimately not really a dictatorship and only provides guidance (but it's still not something I'm terribly comfortable with).

The part I bolded is something where I hadn't made the connection that way before. It's interesting, thanks for mentioning it!

I too think religiously motivated actions are always up to the individual believer, but since Islam is heavily political I'm fairly sure that there's an unusually strong disincentive to that.
It's most likely very much due to poverty and lacking exchange of ideas/education that this is a problem though. Both makes it more difficult for people to reject figures of authority.
(I'm certain that most terror organizations (IS in particular) and authoritarian regimes are economically motivated and only use Islam as a very convenient tool to that end. Otherwise more wealthy societies wouldn't be that friendly towards the west.)

[Killuah]

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906973]As if every country with Sharia law in it was fucked up by the west and not Islam.[/QUOTE]

Noone said "every"

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;46906886][addition of source texts][/QUOTE]

Thanks for this! It's great to have research pointers.

The online link doesn't seem to work for me, but I can probably use the verse(?) number to find related texts about it.

[ExplosiveCheese]

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907028][emphasis mine]

The part about agency was more about veneration of/prayers to saints, it's just something that feels "wrong" to me for lack of a better word.
I don't have any particular huge problems with the Catholic church as institution since it's ultimately not really a dictatorship and only provides guidance (but it's still not something I'm terribly comfortable with).

The part I bolded is something where I hadn't made the connection that way before. It's interesting, thanks for mentioning it!

I too think religiously motivated actions are always up to the individual believer, but since Islam is heavily political I'm fairly sure that there's an unusually strong disincentive to that.
It's most likely very much due to poverty and lacking exchange of ideas/education that this is a problem though. Both makes it more difficult for people to reject figures of authority.
(I'm certain that most terror organizations (IS in particular) and authoritarian regimes are economically motivated and only use Islam as a very convenient tool to that end. Otherwise more wealthy societies wouldn't be that friendly towards the west.)[/QUOTE]

Well think of it like this. Prayer is not worship, it's simply communication. And we can see this type of intercession on God's behalf when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to inform her that she would be the earthly mother of Jesus. Veneration is recognition of the blessings given to the saint by God, and is ultimately, giving respect to the saint. The Protestants, for example, view this as worship and idolatry, and usually take every chance to argue with the Catholic church about it. On your other point, you are right about the economically motivated part, and typically the wealthy society is naturally the more relaxed on the religious laws as well while still maintaining the faith as a whole. Doesn't Dubai or the United Arab Emirates fit this description?

[editline]11th January 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907068]Thanks for this! It's great to have research pointers.

The online link doesn't seem to work for me, but I can probably use the verse(?) number to find related texts about it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, sorry about that, but there is an online Qu'ran with the same translation.

[URL]http://quran.com/[/URL]

[Kardia]

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906945]That is up to the circumstances and that's what people do forget when they ask unanswerable questions like that.[/QUOTE]

Well I find hypotheticals to be quite useful, unlike you it seems. Regardless, I should just outright say what I intend to point out.

Islam teaches that the drawing of sacred figures such as Mohammad is forbidden and sacrilegious. As a result of people believing such teachings, people have and will get angered by drawings like this, and they feel justified in killing artists who draw such images.

We have seen these "punishment" killings happen and we will probably continue to see these killings happen.

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=Kardia;46906935]I'll explain why you should care if you'll explain why I shouldn't.

[...][/QUOTE]

It's a few pixels above the part you took out of context, and I even mentioned it again in the second reply so you don't miss it.
If you quote me like this but remove part of it and argue with false assumptions please mark it somehow so it's clear there's more in the original post.

[Kardia]

[QUOTE=Killuah;46907032]Noone said "every"[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Killuah;46906920]It's just that we fucked up [B]the regions that have a lot of Muslims[/B][/QUOTE]

Do you know how English works? That means every region with a lot of Muslims.

[editline]11th January 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907094] [...] It's a few pixels above the part you took out of context, and I even mentioned it again in the second reply so you don't miss it.
If you quote me like this but remove part of it and argue with false assumptions please mark it somehow so it's clear there's more in the original post. [...] [/QUOTE]

I didn't consider the part you are talking about as relevant to my question. Here's why.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46906765] [...] You can make predictions based on probability. [...] [/QUOTE]

Okay this indicates that we should care about "what if" questions. It aids with prediction, very useful.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46906765] [...] However, and this is the important part, while you can learn from hindsight (which is very important because it offsets suboptimal decision-making), bringing it up in this context here can be considered at best irrelevant and at worst a form of victim-blaming. [...] [/QUOTE]

How is it "irrelevant"? You just said we shouldn't care for questions like this, but you haven't explained why.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46906765] [...] If this isn't countered through argument and results in weakening satirists' protection from harm, it directly erodes the human rights of freedom of expression as well as equality before the law. [...] [/QUOTE]

Okay you're talking about the ethical implications of the question, not relevant to the questions utility.

So I still want an answer. Why should I not care about "what if" questions?

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;46907072]Well think of it like this. Prayer is not worship, it's simply communication. And we can see this type of intercession on God's behalf when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to inform her that she would be the earthly mother of Jesus. Veneration is recognition of the blessings given to the saint by God, and is ultimately, giving respect to the saint. The Protestants, for example, view this as worship and idolatry, and usually take every chance to argue with the Catholic church about it.[/QUOTE]

Interesting, that definitely seems to make sense internally, respectively.
(As you can probably tell I know a lot more about the Protestant point of view, and not much about Catholic practice.)

[QUOTE]On your other point, you are right about the economically motivated part, and typically the wealthy society is naturally the more relaxed on the religious laws as well while still maintaining the faith as a whole. Doesn't Dubai or the United Arab Emirates fit this description?[/QUOTE]

Those were the examples I thought of when writing that, yes.

I have issues with the gender-specific laws and the harshness of punishments in many cases, though, as well as restrictions on benign behaviour/basic human rights.
It's far from ideal, but definitely seems a lot better than the poorer regions. (Though afaik there are a ton of bad things that still happen but aren't "official", like funding violent conflicts elsewhere... but I don't have a clue about the motivations.)

[editline]12th January 2015[/editline]

[QUOTE=Kardia;46907109]I didn't consider the part you are talking about as relevant to my question. Here's why.

[quote]You can make predictions based on probability.[/quote]

Okay this indicates that we should care about "what if" questions. It aids with prediction, very useful.[/quote]

I concede this is true in this post, but it's not what I mean in the slightest in the one you quoted and I'm a bit angry about those misquotes at this point.

The part you quoted was strictly about whether it would be possible to answer the question you propose, which means the your answer to it is technically a lie.

However, it is irrelevant to the usefulness of "what if" questions.

[quote][quote]However, and this is the important part, while you can learn from hindsight (which is very important because it offsets suboptimal decision-making), bringing it up in this context here can be considered at best irrelevant and at worst a form of victim-blaming.[/quote]

How is it "irrelevant"? You just said we shouldn't care for questions like this, but you haven't explained why.[/quote]

[del]By asking that question it's usually insinuated that the publication shouldn't have happened.
If that wasn't your intention then I apologize.

I think it's irrelevant because all answers to it deal solely with whether such publications should happen.[/del]

:suicide:

Oh wow, that wasn't the original "what if" question here. In that case yes, my point is totally moot.

[editline]edit[/editline] I think the "By asking "Would it have happened if it hadn't been published?" it's usually insinuated that the publication shouldn't have happened."-part still stands.

[quote][quote]If this isn't countered through argument and results in weakening satirists' protection from harm, it directly erodes the human rights of freedom of expression as well as equality before the law.[/quote]

Okay you're talking about the ethical implications of the question, not relevant to the questions utility.

So I still want an answer. Why should I not care about "what if" questions?[/QUOTE]

I think a question's (or any utterance's) ethical implication should factor into its utility. [editline]edit[/editline] <- This is probably my main opinion here. You're definitely right that irrelevant is the wrong word though.

But aside from that you're definitely right, it's not a bad idea to ask the questions in the kind of context it happened in this instance, and that I very badly misunderstood.

(Some idiot authoritarian SJWs were victim-blaming on Twitter, I think I mixed something up in my brain. Sorry.)

[Kardia]

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907179] [...] I concede this is true in this post, but it's not what I mean in the slightest in the one you quoted and I'm a bit angry about those misquotes at this point. [...] [/QUOTE]

I'm sorry about the misquotes. I'm not intending to misrepresent you, if anything my misquotes just represent my inability to understand what you are saying. I'm trying to quote what's relevant, but I'm having a hard time seeing what is a relevant quote.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907179] [...] The part you quoted was strictly about whether it would be possible to answer the question you propose, which means the your answer to it is technically a lie.

However, it is irrelevant to the usefulness of "what if" questions. [...] [/QUOTE]

I understand that. Hypotheticals are intrinsically fictional. But they are meant to simulate the real world as close as possible while changing the specified conditions alone.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907179] [...] Oh wow, that wasn't the original "what if" question here. In that case yes, my point is totally moot. [...] [/QUOTE]

Yeah that got confusing for us both.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907179] [...] I think a question's (or any utterance's) ethical implication should factor into its utility. [...] [/QUOTE]

It does factor in. But I don't care about thought crime, so I will always ponder on questions regardless of who it may or may not hurt.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907179] [...] But aside from that you're definitely right, it's not a bad idea to ask the questions in the kind of context it happened in this instance, and that I very badly misunderstood.

(Some idiot authoritarian SJWs were victim-blaming on Twitter, I think I mixed something up in my brain. Sorry.)[/QUOTE]

Don't worry about it. I wasn't angered by you, just really curious.

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=Kardia;46907332]I'm sorry about the misquotes. I'm not intending to misrepresent you, if anything my misquotes just represent my inability to understand what you are saying. I'm trying to quote what's relevant, but I'm having a hard time seeing what is a relevant quote.

[/QUOTE]I overreacted a bit. Still, it would be nice if you replaced the removed parts with for example [...] since it avoids possible confusion of the reader.[QUOTE]

I understand that. Hypotheticals are intrinsically fictional. But they are meant to simulate the real world as close as possible while changing the specified conditions alone.

[/QUOTE]As long as the hypothetical is anchored somewhere I agree, it's definitely beneficial at least to [I]some[/I] effect.
It may be destructive otherwise at the same time though.[QUOTE]

[...]

It does factor in. But I don't care about thought crime, so I will always ponder on questions regardless of who it may or may not hurt.

[...][/QUOTE]I think that's a very good position to take as simplest general rule, but like most other rhetoric questions and hypotheticals can be used for malicious purposes since there can be subtext.

They shouldn't always be defensible as "just a question" or "just a hypothetical" since it's still very possible to cause harm by asking them in just-the-wrong place, whether that's intentional or by accident (though in the latter case I think it's enough to clear it up after the fact).

Obviously they shouldn't be banned, but I don't think it's good to grant blanket excuses for any kind of figure of speech.

[Kardia]

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907485]I overreacted a bit. Still, it would be nice if you replaced the removed parts with for example [...] [...][/QUOTE]

I'll do that.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907485] [...] I think that's a very good position to take as simplest general rule, but like most other rhetoric questions and hypotheticals can be used for malicious purposes since there can be subtext. [...] [/QUOTE]

I agree. Words can hurt people. Thoughts can too.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907485][...] They shouldn't always be defensible as "just a question" or "just a hypothetical" since it's still very possible to cause harm by asking them in just-the-wrong place, whether that's intentional or by accident (though in the latter case I think it's enough to clear it up after the fact). [...][/QUOTE]

Yes, they could cause harm. But so could many things. And I'm the type of person that accepts the dangers of life and having emotions. I accept I will be hurt by words and I think everyone should accept that about themselves and embrace it as much as they can... Because if they don't, they will be damaged emotionally frequently. Which is not good for them directly and not good for others who they may wish to oppress by silencing them unfairly. I think this might be something we will not agree upon.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46907485][...] Obviously they shouldn't be banned, but I don't think it's good to grant blanket excuses for any kind of figure of speech. [...][/QUOTE]

At least you don't want certain rhetoric banned. That's good. But I think figures of speech get a blanket excuse of being figures of speech. Obviously they should be criticized when used with little logic.

[Tamschi]

[QUOTE=Kardia;46908253][...]

Yes, they could cause harm. But so could many things. And I'm the type of person that accepts the dangers of life and having emotions. I accept I will be hurt by words and I think everyone should accept that about themselves and embrace it as much as they can... Because if they don't, they will be damaged emotionally frequently. Which is not good for them directly and not good for others who they may wish to oppress by silencing them unfairly. I think this might be something we will not agree upon.

At least you don't want certain rhetoric banned. That's good. But I think figures of speech get a blanket excuse of being figures of speech. Obviously they should be criticized when used with little logic.[/QUOTE]

No I agree (and I have no problem with people getting hurt by words a little as long as it's not targeted harassment they can't easily remove themselves from).

I just think hate speech (e.g. publicly calling for the unlawful persecution of a certain person or group of people) should be banned, as should be the case for slander (the latter obviously with strict limits on what constitutes it).
Due to that, I think rhetoric should be only evaluated in context and always criticized when used with little logic or to obscure a malicious intent.

When I say figures of speech shouldn't get a blanket excuse, I don't mean the abstract concept of the figure of speech but the figures of speech as used in any specific instance.
(I seriously saw people excuse blatant sexism using the "it's just a figure of speech" approach a few times, so I'm not too keen on people speaking in absolutes about them (or any kind of tool, really) because then those who want to white-wash destructive behaviour can use that to create a false image of consensus surrounding their position.)

I do disapprove of unnecessary harshness if there's a nicer but just as effective way to put things, since to me that falls under being rude just for the sake of it.
However, this is something that should be agreed upon between the participants of a discussion and I really shouldn't dictate anything in that matter if I'm not involved in the first place.