Massacre in Paris - Islamic Extremists Kill At least 12

[Doomkid]

First off I'd just like to say that I agree with the overall premise of your post.

Mithran Denizen said:

[...]you can selectively assign or revoke human dignity from people based on whatever criteria you're comfortable with, and that harming people that you see as fundamentally "beneath" you then becomes all well and good.

Now see, I understand where mrthejoshmon is coming from, but my opinion differs slightly. I am for the death penalty, but only in extreme cases. You're saying the post implies "selectively assigning or revoking human dignity from people based on whatever criteria you're comfortable with", but isn't that what all socities do as it stands anyway?

Over generations, we've come to mostly arbitrary decisions about what is and is not legal, what does and what does not constitue certain punishments, etc. through all various political systems. The idea is not farfetched that at a certain point we say "okay, enough is enough" and use the death penalty. Why shound someone who commits heinous crimes repeatedly not be ended?

[Mithran Denizen]

Doomkid said:

You're saying the post implies "selectively assigning or revoking human dignity from people based on whatever criteria you're comfortable with", but isn't that what all socities do as it stands anyway?

In many senses, yes, they do. Wrongfully. Societies devalue human welfare and dignity based on non-relevant criteria all the time. Hence why constructs like racism and sexism still exist in so many forms.

Over generations, we've come to mostly arbitrary decisions about what is and is not legal, what does and what does not constitue certain punishments, etc. through all various political systems.

"Think carefully about every law; they're often right," I think the saying goes.

There is of course a major gap between the law and ethics, but the optimist in me will say that the gradual development of most legal codes has followed a progression that is at least slightly better than "mostly arbitrary." There tends to be a lot of reasoning (usually good, but sometimes poor) that goes into it. As stronger, more convincing ethical arguments are made to replace the weak ones over time, enough people eventually pay attention, and the law therefore improves.

The idea is not farfetched that at a certain point we say "okay, enough is enough" and use the death penalty. Why shound someone who commits heinous crimes repeatedly not be ended?

For the record, I have no issue with the concept of proportionality, nor with execution on pragmatic grounds. Yes, severely harmful acts may warrant severe punishment, including the death of the perpetrator. Yes, we may be justified in killing another human being if they are otherwise going to cause more harm than the totality of their life is worth. These arguments can be made on a number of solid moral grounds.

Pretending that such people are no longer fully human is not among those grounds, however. There's a difference between punishing someone for their own sake, and out of respect for them, versus punishing them to fulfill a narcissistic sense of vengefulness, and using them to strengthen the feel-good delusion that your own nature is something fundamentally separate. There's a difference between these two ways of reasoning about an individual...

"You screwed up and caused wrongful harm. We know you could've chosen much better, so we're holding you to a very high ethical standard. Accountability to this standard demands that you pay for your actions."

vs:

"You are a disgusting piece of shit for what you did. You sicken me, and I hope you suffer. Since you're now you're at my mercy, I care about your welfare less than I care about dirt."

... and there's a difference in the results of systematically applying one versus the other, as well.

[Doomkid]

Mithran Denizen said:

There is of course a major gap between the law and ethics, but the optimist in me will say that the gradual development of most legal codes has followed a progression that is at least slightly better than "mostly arbitrary."

Hmm, I meant to add something about countries that are more well off often having a (generally) more structured set of laws and general rules of conudct, but didn't.. It came off far more pessimistic than I intended.

Mithran Denizen said:

Yes, severely harmful acts may warrant severe punishment, including the death of the perpetrator. Yes, we may be justified in killing another human being if they are otherwise going to cause more harm than the totality of their life is worth. These arguments can be made on a number of solid moral grounds.

Pretending that such people are no longer fully human is not among those grounds, however. There's a difference between punishing someone for their own sake, and out of respect for them, versus punishing them to fulfill a narcissistic sense of vengefulness, and using them to strengthen the feel-good delusion that your own nature is something fundamentally separate.

I agree with this wholeheartedly and didn't intended to come off the contrary.

[Maes]

So, they went ahead and did it:

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/03a21295bd99ab707b69ddac2087b354e192b4f7/c=0-8-3360-4488&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/2015/01/12/USATODAY/USATODAY/635566811767752862-AFP-536711811.jpg

And, QED, Muslims weren't too pleased.

I mean, seriously. If you had to deal with someone who didn't like you calling him some silly nickname like "Mohi" (for whatever reason), and when he asks you to comply you reply "OK, Mohi!" then he won't find that "funny" or "liberated": he'll justly get pissed off and put you in your place.

[Captain Red]

I wonder what would happen if there was ever a terrorist attack in retaliation for GOATSE?

[Quasar]

Of course they're not. I'm sick of these suggestions that we need to outlaw freedom of speech. What do you think is going to be the end result? They'll all be happy and stop attacking Western society? Yeah right. They're killing you now because you're insulting their prophet; they'll kill you later just because you're not Muslim.

The map of Europe 20 years from now will have New Afghanistan, New Pakistan, New Nigeria, New Iraq, New Sudan, you name it. Everything I've seen suggests that the Muslim immigrants are not interested in integration. They are establishing their own belligerent states inside Europe and turning it into pocket fortresses of their home countries. That is not what European bleeding hearts want to label multiculturalism - some kind of mythical thing that's never existed where people with diametrically opposed value systems all still somehow manage to contribute value to a single society. It is two separate societies that don't get along and one or the other is eventually going to be destroyed as a result.

That's my view.

[Kontra Kommando]

http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-rejects-request-delay-boston-bombing-trial-145855969.html

The living Boston bomber asked for his trial to be pushed back, due to the events in Paris. He said that the there would be a bias against him, because of it. Thankfully, this ridiculous request was rejected.

They should put this prick in front of a firing squad.

[dew]

Quasar said:

That's my view.

Here, have a story. You are right about one thing though, multiculturalism is indeed wrong - by definition. The goal cannot be to have multiple cultures that don't intersect, because that just means ghettos. The goal is to melt them into one. America, despite its many bigots, is pretty good at that and Europe was historically too (at times). Culture cannot be stagnant and foreign elements were always a big driving factor of its evolution, so assimilating Muslim culture is okay by me. What must be defended at all costs is the system that allows this melting process to take place - and no other country is as symbolic for republican and secular values more than France (sorry, Yanks... and Greeks, I guess).

[dew]

Look at UK joining US in autocensuring themselves while preaching about freedom of press, heh.

[Technician]

Quasar said:

Of course they're not. I'm sick of these suggestions that we need to outlaw freedom of speech. What do you think is going to be the end result? They'll all be happy and stop attacking Western society? Yeah right. They're killing you now because you're insulting their prophet; they'll kill you later just because you're not Muslim.

The map of Europe 20 years from now will have New Afghanistan, New Pakistan, New Nigeria, New Iraq, New Sudan, you name it. Everything I've seen suggests that the Muslim immigrants are not interested in integration. They are establishing their own belligerent states inside Europe and turning it into pocket fortresses of their home countries. That is not what European bleeding hearts want to label multiculturalism - some kind of mythical thing that's never existed where people with diametrically opposed value systems all still somehow manage to contribute value to a single society. It is two separate societies that don't get along and one or the other is eventually going to be destroyed as a result.

That's my view.

I think a solution is they need to be at least somewhat selective with their immigration candidates. Sweden is the best example of multiculturalism gone bad but a contributing factor is they've made a point of bringing over Muslims that are from impoverished nations and who's social skills are on par with the time of Muhammad. I'm sure Muslims from Tehran, Cairo, Istanbul, etc. would integrate better in modern suburban environments that is most of Europe. Especially educated Muslims. Usually an educated mind is a rational mind. Also, it's the steady importation of these (for lack of a better term) hick Muslims that keep fundamentalism a topic instead of allowing the current, European raised Muslims to continue to integrate with the historic natives society. Which brings me to this:

Islamic Education in Europe This perpetuates the divide and inhibits integration. I've never agreed with religious-centric schools. And many of these schools have been shown to be nothing more than classes on how to exploit the government and perpetuate Sharia in their community.

dew said:

video

It's their right to pussy out but it does nothing other than making the unvocalized statement that terrorism will get you what you want.

When the French media have shown more balls... Well, the British may have to rethink some things.

[june gloom]

Kontra Kommando said:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-rejects-request-delay-boston-bombing-trial-145855969.html

The living Boston bomber asked for his trial to be pushed back, due to the events in Paris. He said that the there would be a bias against him, because of it. Thankfully, this ridiculous request was rejected.

They should put this prick in front of a firing squad.

On a purely legal basis he has the right to ask for that. It's normal for defendants to request a change in time or venue due to circumstances locally or in the news. That being said, it's been like what, 2 years? The real problem is how long it's taken to get to trial in the first place.

[Doomkid]

Maes said:

So, they went ahead and did it:

[img]

And, QED, Muslims weren't too pleased.

Ugh, the cartoon isn't even good, it looks like some shit an 8 year old would draw.[/completely offtopic]

[june gloom]

No it isn't. You're expecting Jim Lee techniques out of friggin' satire/caricature artists? Come on...

[Doomkid]

Well I mean, it's usually better than... A weird looking muhammad with boob hat? If you're gonna do something just to piss people off, at least make it worth it! I get what you're saying, but the shitty cartoon kinda annoys me. Don't get me wrong - It's good people are excersizing their "right" to draw this kinda stuff, the fact that it's an issue is just insanity.

[FireFish]

My suspicion was grounded ;
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/15/world/belgium-anti-terror-operation/

Well, even this little country became a target. i give it a year max. before it fades away from the media, unless other ordeals intervene.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/15/three-killed-belgium-counter-terror-raids-reports-verviers

[Technician]

This is becoming more and more clear that the cartoons were just a convenient excuse to pull off some planned terrorist attacks. I don't like that they're immediately involving ISIS and al'Qaeda as it sounds like an excuse to get reinvolved in the Middle East and tighten security all around Europe much like the Bush doctrine did in the Americas. Though, the attacks do make sense geopolitically for al'Qaeda. More attacks will inevitably sour more European whites and continue to divide and ostracize European Muslims.

[Kontra Kommando]

dethtoll said:

On a purely legal basis he has the right to ask for that. It's normal for defendants to request a change in time or venue due to circumstances locally or in the news. That being said, it's been like what, 2 years? The real problem is how long it's taken to get to trial in the first place.

I agree with that. He has a right to a trial on a purely legal basis. Personally, I just think he's an asshole. Nevertheless, everyone needs to be held to the same standard, even if they are traitors/domestic-terrorists. The judge had good desecration, in dealing with this aspect of the defendant's due process.

[myk]

Quasar said:
Yeah right. They're killing you now because you're insulting their prophet; they'll kill you later just because you're not Muslim.

How convenient, just ignore they will kill you because you finance unmanned drones that kill them for their resources. Maybe religion is just an excuse they use to do it in really disadvantageous and practically suicidal conditions because they still have some will to fight back?

Everything I've seen suggests that the Muslim immigrants are not interested in integration.

Europe has no interest in any form of integration, except maybe for its banks. Every day it excludes its own Europeans through its austerity measures and its export-industry orientation. These Europeans start to feel left out so it's no wonder they start to look askance and in distrust at foreigners and foreign cultures, which end up even more marginalized than before. Hate ensues.

The "melting pot" idea was a feel-good concept European colonists came up with to try to whitewash what their methods of assimilation after dominating other peoples. But if you create the economic and political conditions for people to feel at home, they lose interest in radicalism and bigotry and integrate maintaining many of their differences, each with their cultural claims and histories.

Technician said:
And many of these schools have been shown to be nothing more than classes on how to exploit the government and perpetuate Sharia in their community.

Those are consequences, not causes. Muslim radicalism was started mainly by conservative elites and the rich in the Middle East to face secularism and populism. That also led them to ally themselves with Western powers, who have the same enemies and need some faction to help them get involved. The radicals also recruited other Middle Easterners who became disenchanted with failing nation states that they were destroying. These can turn on them because ultimately they're there in hope of some change, not to defend elites. The Muslims who put a lot of money in your banks put up those schools, not some random crazy towel-heads out of a ghetto. The ones that like to invite poorer people because they are cheap to use, just like your cost-cutting men in suits, their business partners, do.

[Gez]

Quasar said:

Everything I've seen suggests that the Muslim immigrants are not interested in integration.

Ahmed Merabet, Mustapha Ourrad, Lassana Bathily.

[june gloom]

Doomkid said:

Well I mean, it's usually better than... A weird looking muhammad with boob hat? If you're gonna do something just to piss people off, at least make it worth it! I get what you're saying, but the shitty cartoon kinda annoys me. Don't get me wrong - It's good people are excersizing their "right" to draw this kinda stuff, the fact that it's an issue is just insanity.

Except it's not a "shitty" cartoon. It's just a cartoon in a style used for political cartoons and caricatures the world over. Not everything has to be hyper realistic.

[Quast]

myk said:

How convenient, just ignore they will kill you because you finance unmanned drones that kill them for their resources. Maybe religion is just an excuse they use to do it in really disadvantageous and practically suicidal conditions because they still have some will to fight back?

The assailants themselves were french citizens and the motive for their specific and deliberate actions seems rather clear. It wasn't a random suicide bombing in a french market by an ISIS operative upset at french foreign policy in syria.

[Doomkid]

dethtoll said:

Except it's not a "shitty" cartoon. It's just a cartoon in a style used for political cartoons and caricatures the world over. Not everything has to be hyper realistic.

What constitutes 'shitty' differs from person to person. I never said I wanted something hyper realistic. I think the cartoon looks like total shit - But I think anyone and everyone should be free to draw whatever they want. Let's drop it at that.

[june gloom]

No, let's not, because you don't get to denigrate an entire artistic style just because it offends your delicate nerd sensibilities or whatever.

Do you open the newspaper opinion page and go "UGH, THESE GEEKS CAN'T DRAW?" Though I'm assuming you even look at a newspaper at all, which is probably assuming too much in this day and age...

(I'm okay with the mods dragging this into another thread if it suits them)

[myk]

Quast said:
The assailants themselves were french citizens and the motive for their specific and deliberate actions seems rather clear. It wasn't a random suicide bombing in a french market by an ISIS operative upset at french foreign policy in syria.

Just so you know the next time the brainwasher media strikes your head to help you disseminate their fundamentalist propaganda in this half-witless manner, Hollande himself, smelling French guilt from Libya and Mali, suggested the media do the utmost to disassociate the incident from our geopolitical context by saying this is wholly a French matter, and brushing it under the carpet as soon as possible.

No matter how hard Europeans try, the links between their involvement in the Middle East, the violence there, and the behavior of radicals in the Old World will not be undone. Had there been relative Muslim peace in the Middle East and abroad, these two French citizens of Algerian descent would have found much less deadly means to tell everybody, in France and all the Muslim world, that they felt their religious pride was being stepped on.

[Gez]

Problem when you start going the "it's your fault for your history" is that history isn't as unilateral as you might be thinking. Algeria was conquered to put an end to piracy and slave raids.

[snapshot]

It's called "Freedom of speech" not "Freedom of Insults"

[june gloom]

I hate to wade into this but they're the same thing. It's just that most people don't realize that free speech goes both ways. Yes, you're allowed to yell at black people on the internet. And everyone else has the right to tell you to fuck off, because the concept of free speech actually only counts when it's the government that curbs it.

[Technician]

DMGUYDZ64 said:

It's called "Freedom of speech" not "Freedom of Insults"

One man's opinion is another man's insult.

[DeathevokatioN]

If only France had stricter gun control.... oh wait.

[Captain Red]

If only there was a good guy with a gun.