 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
None of them are doing it for any God, they are just nasty greedy power hungry dead shits, everything else is just an excuse
Kill them, kill them all!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
But surely it's patently obvious that these are not identical situations. There's a significant difference between crimes committed by Christians and crimes committed because of a belief in a form of Christianity. . |
| swoop42 wrote: |
There is a big difference from identifying as a Christian and practising as one.
.....
Besides the crimes in Mexico aren't being done in the name of Jesus Christ they are being done in spite of some of those having faith in him.
Muslim extremists like we saw yesterday act in the name of Allah. |
Nailed by Swoop and David.
Doing bad stuff and purporting to be off a particular religious persuasion is one thing, doing bad stuff and claiming that you're doing it BECAUSE of your particular religious persuasion is something wholly different.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | But surely it's patently obvious that these are not identical situations. There's a significant difference between crimes committed by Christians and crimes committed because of a belief in a form of Christianity.
Of course, as critics of new atheism are right to point out, Islamic extremism is about so much more than religion. But while that analysis might hold firm for, say, the actions of ISIS or attacks on US embassies, the religious link couldn't really be clearer in this incident. It'd be hard to find a more clear-cut example of religious fundamentalism's intolerance of open criticism and mockery. The power dynamics may have shifted slightly, but this incident has more in common with heretics being burned at the stake in the 15th century than drug cartels in Mexico. |
It's not clear at all; in fact miles from clear at any serious level of analysis you might wish to publish and stake your reputation on.
If religion is simply a mode of culture, which it is, that makes it a form and an idiom. So what other form would you expect someone who has grown up in an Islamic idiom to use as a mode of psychiatric expression? Buddhism? Confucianism? Postmodernism? Religion is general culture to the extent that it is mainstream or the culture available to children. And in Latin America, Christianity is the dominant idiom, so of course people operate in that culture as Christians. And, just as you have Arabic Muslims, you also have Peruvian Christians, so they mutate in just the same way.
If so, what makes you think Colombian gangsters are not being gangsters as Christians? It's possible some are and some aren't, but the fact is we wouldn't know that in advance unless we create a new theory of certain Latin American cultures which denies the overt claims of Latin American Christian extremist gangster terrorists, yet believes the overt claims of Yemeni extremist gangster Muslims. What makes you more sure one is doing it for god and one isn't? Their words? Their psychiatries? Some new theory of the relationship between culture and religion? Or your preprogrammed biases? |
Well, how about the fact that the murderers in this case reportedly proclaimed "Mohammed has been avenged" after the shootings? And how about the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a twisted form of Christianity is a significant motivating factor in the actions of Mexican gangsters? And that you haven't even proposed a theory as to how it could be, beyond the fact that a large number of these criminals are nominally Christian?
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act.
You need to give the average person on the street more credit for independent thought. As WPT is fond of saying, sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | None of them are doing it for any God, they are just nasty greedy power hungry dead shits, everything else is just an excuse |
You and I are close on that, though I would use either "rationalisation" or "reasoning scope" instead of "excuse". But you have to remember, most things are rationalised imperceptibly over time as a response to strong emotional triggers (so and so has done evil to me; I will assert myself by killing him; we will all be better off for my contribution which is really a pure, heroic act). Those strong emotions could be narcissistic (self aggrandisement; power), or based on anger, paranoia, panic, etc. In all cases these things are projections of either strong inner emotions seeking resolution, or temporary/permanent psychopathy.
Basically, it happens all over the world in all kinds of cultures everyday.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | Robert Rodriguez makes a damn good movie too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I16020r--oM
Interesting that he has a frequent theme of the drugs and government corruption in mexico in his movies.
Michelle Rodriguez is absolutely smoking. |
Uh huh born in Texas to a Dominican republic mother, and Puerto Rican father!
Not Mexican, but still stunning! |
They all look the same to Stui.
.....from behind.  |
soms of anarchy, second last episode, juice, also Puerto Rican I believe!
Yeah I can dig that!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | But surely it's patently obvious that these are not identical situations. There's a significant difference between crimes committed by Christians and crimes committed because of a belief in a form of Christianity.
Of course, as critics of new atheism are right to point out, Islamic extremism is about so much more than religion. But while that analysis might hold firm for, say, the actions of ISIS or attacks on US embassies, the religious link couldn't really be clearer in this incident. It'd be hard to find a more clear-cut example of religious fundamentalism's intolerance of open criticism and mockery. The power dynamics may have shifted slightly, but this incident has more in common with heretics being burned at the stake in the 15th century than drug cartels in Mexico. |
It's not clear at all; in fact miles from clear at any serious level of analysis you might wish to publish and stake your reputation on.
If religion is simply a mode of culture, which it is, that makes it a form and an idiom. So what other form would you expect someone who has grown up in an Islamic idiom to use as a mode of psychiatric expression? Buddhism? Confucianism? Postmodernism? Religion is general culture to the extent that it is mainstream or the culture available to children. And in Latin America, Christianity is the dominant idiom, so of course people operate in that culture as Christians. And, just as you have Arabic Muslims, you also have Peruvian Christians, so they mutate in just the same way.
If so, what makes you think Colombian gangsters are not being gangsters as Christians? It's possible some are and some aren't, but the fact is we wouldn't know that in advance unless we create a new theory of certain Latin American cultures which denies the overt claims of Latin American Christian extremist gangster terrorists, yet believes the overt claims of Yemeni extremist gangster Muslims. What makes you more sure one is doing it for god and one isn't? Their words? Their psychiatries? Some new theory of the relationship between culture and religion? Or your preprogrammed biases? |
Well, how about the fact that the murderers in this case reportedly proclaimed "Mohammed has been avenged" after the shootings? And how about the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a twisted form of Christianity is a significant motivating factor in the actions of Mexican gangsters? And that you haven't even proposed a theory as to how it could be, beyond the fact that a large number of these criminals are nominally Christian?
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act.
You need to give the average person on the street more credit for independent thought. As WPT is fond of saying, sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber. |
Um I thought you said there was no such thing as 'free will?"
How about we discuss it and leave all gods out of it? What are we left with? $£$%^%%$ evil hot plate bait
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | But surely it's patently obvious that these are not identical situations. There's a significant difference between crimes committed by Christians and crimes committed because of a belief in a form of Christianity.
Of course, as critics of new atheism are right to point out, Islamic extremism is about so much more than religion. But while that analysis might hold firm for, say, the actions of ISIS or attacks on US embassies, the religious link couldn't really be clearer in this incident. It'd be hard to find a more clear-cut example of religious fundamentalism's intolerance of open criticism and mockery. The power dynamics may have shifted slightly, but this incident has more in common with heretics being burned at the stake in the 15th century than drug cartels in Mexico. |
It's not clear at all; in fact miles from clear at any serious level of analysis you might wish to publish and stake your reputation on.
If religion is simply a mode of culture, which it is, that makes it a form and an idiom. So what other form would you expect someone who has grown up in an Islamic idiom to use as a mode of psychiatric expression? Buddhism? Confucianism? Postmodernism? Religion is general culture to the extent that it is mainstream or the culture available to children. And in Latin America, Christianity is the dominant idiom, so of course people operate in that culture as Christians. And, just as you have Arabic Muslims, you also have Peruvian Christians, so they mutate in just the same way.
If so, what makes you think Colombian gangsters are not being gangsters as Christians? It's possible some are and some aren't, but the fact is we wouldn't know that in advance unless we create a new theory of certain Latin American cultures which denies the overt claims of Latin American Christian extremist gangster terrorists, yet believes the overt claims of Yemeni extremist gangster Muslims. What makes you more sure one is doing it for god and one isn't? Their words? Their psychiatries? Some new theory of the relationship between culture and religion? Or your preprogrammed biases? |
Well, how about the fact that the murderers in this case reportedly proclaimed "Mohammed has been avenged" after the shootings? And how about the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a twisted form of Christianity is a significant motivating factor in the actions of Mexican gangsters? And that you haven't even proposed a theory as to how it could be, beyond the fact that a large number of these criminals are nominally Christian?
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act.
You need to give the average person on the street more credit for independent thought. As WPT is fond of saying, sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber. |
As explained in the post above, it's just an idiomatic externalisation. Creating a whole new category, the "nominal x" is special pleading; why is the Mexican Christian terrorist nominal, but the Muslim extremist terrorist not nominal, and what makes you so sure when your knowledge of both is close to zero?
I know Mrs. Jones is a devout Christian because I know her, and that so and so is a Pharisee who just goes to church to look good because it helps him win contracts with his conservative Christian business friends. I know this because I know them both well.
However, in this case you don't know either party at all, but you accept one party's claims at face value, and don't consider the other party could possibly be sincere. Based on zero information as to the sincerity or psychiatry of either party.
This is straight up special pleading, not serious analysis.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | David wrote: |
But surely it's patently obvious that these are not identical situations. There's a significant difference between crimes committed by Christians and crimes committed because of a belief in a form of Christianity. . |
| swoop42 wrote: |
There is a big difference from identifying as a Christian and practising as one.
.....
Besides the crimes in Mexico aren't being done in the name of Jesus Christ they are being done in spite of some of those having faith in him.
Muslim extremists like we saw yesterday act in the name of Allah. |
Nailed by Swoop and David.
Doing bad stuff and purporting to be off a particular religious persuasion is one thing, doing bad stuff and claiming that you're doing it BECAUSE of your particular religious persuasion is something wholly different. |
Unfortunately, taking the words of deranged killers at face value doesn't count as analysis. Psychopaths say the darnedest things!
Seriously, though, as I say, what idiom do you expect people to employ except their own? The internal state has to be rationalised and externalised in some idiom. The idiom is sectarian, but the psychiatry is universal.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act. |
You've nailed it in one; I couldn't have expressed it better myself. Which is more likely, that the last group of killers is peculiar, or that they're being subject to inconsistent analysis?
Unfortunately, study after study and experiment after experiment of late has shown just how strong, and reality distorting, anti-Muslim bias is. And, contrary your uncharacteristic appeal to analysis by opinion poll, people do not understand the complex relationship between culture, religion, psychiatry and behaviour intuitively because self contextualization, much like relativity, is not intuitive.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
|
|
|
|
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: | But surely it's patently obvious that these are not identical situations. There's a significant difference between crimes committed by Christians and crimes committed because of a belief in a form of Christianity.
Of course, as critics of new atheism are right to point out, Islamic extremism is about so much more than religion. But while that analysis might hold firm for, say, the actions of ISIS or attacks on US embassies, the religious link couldn't really be clearer in this incident. It'd be hard to find a more clear-cut example of religious fundamentalism's intolerance of open criticism and mockery. The power dynamics may have shifted slightly, but this incident has more in common with heretics being burned at the stake in the 15th century than drug cartels in Mexico. |
It's not clear at all; in fact miles from clear at any serious level of analysis you might wish to publish and stake your reputation on.
If religion is simply a mode of culture, which it is, that makes it a form and an idiom. So what other form would you expect someone who has grown up in an Islamic idiom to use as a mode of psychiatric expression? Buddhism? Confucianism? Postmodernism? Religion is general culture to the extent that it is mainstream or the culture available to children. And in Latin America, Christianity is the dominant idiom, so of course people operate in that culture as Christians. And, just as you have Arabic Muslims, you also have Peruvian Christians, so they mutate in just the same way.
If so, what makes you think Colombian gangsters are not being gangsters as Christians? It's possible some are and some aren't, but the fact is we wouldn't know that in advance unless we create a new theory of certain Latin American cultures which denies the overt claims of Latin American Christian extremist gangster terrorists, yet believes the overt claims of Yemeni extremist gangster Muslims. What makes you more sure one is doing it for god and one isn't? Their words? Their psychiatries? Some new theory of the relationship between culture and religion? Or your preprogrammed biases? |
Well, how about the fact that the murderers in this case reportedly proclaimed "Mohammed has been avenged" after the shootings? And how about the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a twisted form of Christianity is a significant motivating factor in the actions of Mexican gangsters? And that you haven't even proposed a theory as to how it could be, beyond the fact that a large number of these criminals are nominally Christian?
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act.
You need to give the average person on the street more credit for independent thought. As WPT is fond of saying, sometimes a cucumber is just a cucumber. |
Last time I checked David Mexicans aren't flying planes into buildings in New York while Hindu's aren't blowing up buses in London.
Neither are inspired by there warped sense of faith and importantly they commit there crimes within there own borders.
You can't say the same for Islamic extremists on either fronts.
P.S-I think most were disgusted by the alleged use of chemicals weapons by Bashar al-Assad and still are. Not much love for Syria either given there history.
However given what we have seen since with the rise of ISIS you can see how fragile his hold on power is and why he might be willing to take extreme measures.
Life under ISIS would still be far worse for the majority of citizens you'd think (even though it's a predominantly Sunni Muslim country).
By the way Assad is an Alawite a minority religious group who describe themselves as a sect of Shia Islam. (Thanks google).
This is a battle between Sunni and Shia Muslims just as much as it is between the west and Islamic extremists IMHO.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: |
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act. |
You've nailed it in one; I couldn't have expressed it better myself. Which is more likely, that the last group of killers is peculiar, or that they're being subject to inconsistent analysis?
Unfortunately, study after study and experiment after experiment of late has shown just how strong, and reality distorting, anti-Muslim bias is. And, contrary your uncharacteristic appeal to analysis by opinion poll, people do not understand the complex relationship between culture, religion, psychiatry and behaviour intuitively because self contextualization, much like relativity, is not intuitive. |
Or that, as I was trying to make clear, the reason for this supposedly "inconsistent" analysis is staring us in the face?
I've already included an example of atrocities committed by a Muslim that wouldn't be considered to be attributable to the Islamic faith, so your claim of bias is clearly incorrect. Similarly, putting Geert Wilders/Pauline Hanson types to one side, no-one would see garden-variety antisocial behaviour by Lebanese gangs as representative of problems with the Muslim faith.
My issue here is not so much with making grand claims about the complex psychological motivations of people from other cultural backgrounds. As you know, I'd be the first to criticise simplistic explanations of human behaviour. My critique here actually lies with what I see as your gross simplification (and minimisation) of the response of ordinary Australians of all socioeconomic, educational, religious and political backgrounds, who would see a clear distinction between religiously-motivated crime and crime that is not predominantly religiously motivated, and would see your equivalence of radical Islamist violence with the behaviour of Mexican gangs as absurd and reductive.
That is not to say that I don't agree with some of what you're getting at here, and this is not to deny that the vast majority of Australians have a woeful understanding of the causes of Islamic terrorism and the (unimaginably diverse) psychology of inhabitants of the Muslim diaspora. But I think this kind of equivalence—and yes, you did say that these phenomena were "identical"—is not credible, and I can only think that it's ultimately counterproductive. Now, more than ever, it's absolutely crucial that a defence of moderate Islam can cut through the noise and not just be dismissed as phoney, politically correct apologia. I fear that the battle for tolerance and moderation is not being won right now.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | pietillidie wrote: | | David wrote: |
We're entering into the realm of speculative fantasy here. Let's step back and get some perspective: when Bashar al-Assad, a nominal Muslim, slaughters thousands of his country's citizens, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of Indian thugs, perhaps nominally Hindu, rape a woman on a train, most people do not read this as a religiously-inspired act. When a Mexican gangster with a cross around his neck executes a rival in the drug trade, most people do not see this as a religiously-inspired act. When a group of French-Algerians storm the building of a satirical publication, known for its blasphemous imagery, and declare that the successful murder of several inhabitants is Mohammed's revenge, most people see that as a religiously-inspired act. |
You've nailed it in one; I couldn't have expressed it better myself. Which is more likely, that the last group of killers is peculiar, or that they're being subject to inconsistent analysis?
Unfortunately, study after study and experiment after experiment of late has shown just how strong, and reality distorting, anti-Muslim bias is. And, contrary your uncharacteristic appeal to analysis by opinion poll, people do not understand the complex relationship between culture, religion, psychiatry and behaviour intuitively because self contextualization, much like relativity, is not intuitive. |
Or that, as I was trying to make clear, the reason for this supposedly "inconsistent" analysis is staring us in the face?
I've already included an example of atrocities committed by a Muslim that wouldn't be considered to be attributable to the Islamic faith, so your claim of bias is clearly incorrect. Similarly, putting Geert Wilders/Pauline Hanson types to one side, no-one would see garden-variety antisocial behaviour by Lebanese gangs as representative of problems with the Muslim faith.
My issue here is not so much with making grand claims about the complex psychological motivations of people from other cultural backgrounds. As you know, I'd be the first to criticise simplistic explanations of human behaviour. My critique here actually lies with what I see as your gross simplification (and minimisation) of the response of ordinary Australians of all socioeconomic, educational, religious and political backgrounds, who would see a clear distinction between religiously-motivated crime and crime that is not predominantly religiously motivated, and would see your equivalence of radical Islamist violence with the behaviour of Mexican gangs as absurd and reductive.
That is not to say that I don't agree with some of what you're getting at here, and this is not to deny that the vast majority of Australians have a woeful understanding of the causes of Islamic terrorism and the (unimaginably diverse) psychology of inhabitants of the Muslim diaspora. But I think this kind of equivalence—and yes, you did say that these phenomena were "identical"—is not credible, and I can only think that it's ultimately counterproductive. Now, more than ever, it's absolutely crucial that a defence of moderate Islam can cut through the noise and not just be dismissed as phoney, politically correct apologia. I fear that the battle for tolerance and moderation is not being won right now. |
I am not concerned here with your focus on other people's understanding or misunderstanding of the problem. I am concerned with seeing if we, here, really understand what we're talking about.
You seem very sure that the two are different, but could you really demonstrate at a serious level (any serious level you might submit, say, as a paper to an HQ social psychology journal, or as an expert charged with making serious, life-impacting decisions) that terrorism perpetrated by gangs who are Christian differs from terrorism perpetrated by extremist Islamists who are Muslim?
Basically, this is asking you to show the mechanics are different. Not the clothes, not the idiom, not the geography; the mechanics.
E.g., If the motive for one is " money" or "greed" as Swoop might tell you, demonstrate that the motive for the other is not aggrandisement. Or, if the motive for one is anger-based vengeance rooted in ostracism, demonstrate it is not so for the other. Or, if the motive for another is fear of hierarchical reprisal, demonstrate it is not so for the other. Etc. And that, of course, requires at least some working theory of "motive" to start with.
**Swoop's submission above is twofold: One, Latin American narco terror gangs don't attack overseas, and two, they're not inspired by their warped sense of faith.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My understanding of motive is similar to the way I understand of the science of dreams: you can't simply read dream images on a purely literal level and make simplistic conclusions, but at the same time I don't believe that we need convoluted psychoanalytic explanations to explain such mundane and sometimes obvious content.
On this incident, I agree that it's not "black and white" like another poster claimed in the other thread. We can't talk about single motivations here or anywhere else. What we can talk about though is significant motivations, and coming from a heavily religious upbringing I understand the effect fundamentalist religious adherence has on the human psyche; how it can dominate your life. We do not need much information to recognise that that, at least on the balance of probabilities, was a significant factor here.
Of course it wasn't the only one, and of course there may well be motivations in common with Mexican drug lords. But to place this crime in the same category as that of the ice addict who breaks into your car or the armed gang who hold up a petrol station seems to be denying an important fact—that some crimes do belong in different (at least, rough) categories. To ignore this is to err dangerously close to the libertarian maxim that "everyone is responsible for their own actions", and give damaging social/cultural phenomena a free pass.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
