Early Retirement Extreme Forums

I believe vidéo games actually prevent violence, because they offer an output for such impulses. Without them, this would happen every week.

Jean wrote: ↑

Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:24 am

One way to avoid those attacks would be to clearly demonstrate that Muslims aren't globaly waging or supporting a War against non muslims, and to propose a peacefull option to don't live in a Muslim country in the future.

These people aren't making rational decisions, no amount of proof is going to stop them hating the out group. It would just be derided as the elites trying to impose their will.

If you a priori consider those decisions as irrational, you aren't going anywhere. There are plenty of rational reason to kill other humans. Emotions are usually stopping us. But ignoring killer's both reason and emotion, and just discard them as crazy won't help avoid them to kill.

Jean wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:15 am

But ignoring killer's both reason and emotion, and just discard them as crazy won't help avoid them to kill.

The fatal conceit of the prey is the sheltered belief that they are at the top of the food chain. Once the sheep sees the wolf as nothing but another broken sheep in need of understanding and guidance, it embraces and comforts the wolf even while the teeth sink in.

Eventually lawful good figures out that chaotic evil really does exist and stops trying to rationalize everything.

Good and evil don't exist, chaos and order are relative to one's interest. I feel like you refuse to try to think. Is there a taboo I'm not aware of, or a source to base your belief in pure chaos on?

Lawful good and chaotic evil do exist, but so do lawful evil (obvious choice being efficient shower routine at Auschwitz) and chaotic good (the edge of field and forest where the fruit best ripens.)

I would think that he believes that my family was a threat to him, or that he wants someone else to take what my family has. I don't know why it's so hard to understand for most humans.
Your examples all prove my point. A forest is highly ordered, wolves are just hungry, solid Zyklon B would take several hours to turn into a lethal air concentration of gazeous cyanid gaz at 40°C.

We have exaclty the same post number.
I would rather say that we are social animals, and that for some, group cohesion and respect of authority are more important than for other, because the group get some advantages from the questioning, even if everybody doing it would paralyze the group.

Yes, and that's exactly what Brenton Tarrant tought.

Jean wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 11:35 am

Good and evil don't exist, chaos and order are relative to one's interest.

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. Once you wake up to the reality of evil, the facade of moral relativism will similarly drop and you'll see the playing field a lot differently. Not every enemy can be reasoned with, and that friction against our rational expectations is why movies like Nolan's The Dark Knight are so compelling and why people have such a hard time processing truly dangerous individuals like the NZ shooter.

But then, why shouldn't we kill all muslim because muslim commit terror attack?

Since when is asking a question not okay? You said we should kill all people like Brenton Tarrant. What do you mean by that? The Sunna clearly commands to kill all non muslim. Sunni muslim are either uniformed about their religion, willing to kill all non muslim (and Shia muslim as well, as they don't obey the Calif), or too coward to question their peers. I hope it's either the first or the last option, but having talked to muslims, it seems that most hope we will peacefully convert, as most of them don't like to kill people.

Hooray, we agree on something. But this is so far from the situation that we cannot draw any conclusion from it. This exact mosque was linked to the terror attacks in France. Those people follow an ideology that command the murdering of every one not adheering to it.
As long as there is no collective response about this issue. Individual will try to act on it. I think that those actions might not help the issue, but this is another question.

Jean wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 12:54 pm

But then, why shouldn't we kill ... ?

Because it makes you the wolf. Or maybe you might consider it lawful or neutral evil depending on your perspective. But it's still evil nonetheless.

For the record, I find the discussion about the motivations of the NZ shooter and the nature of good/evil to be interesting but the debate on the justification for murder is not my thing. For the purposes of the original topic, I'm squarely on the side of not shooting up places of worship.

If you are of your own will, praying in a Sunni mosque, it is a reasonable assumption that you believe that the way The Holy Prophet Mohamed as described in the Sunna should be emulated, and therefore that all non believer should be killed. I'm curious about what would have happenened if instead, he went to the mosque with a copy of the sahir Muslim and the sahir Bukhari, and asked the believer if they could say that the behavior of mohamed described in those books should be condemned.

Let's, just for this question, assume that all muslim wan't to kill everyone else. Should they be killed then?
He tought like you, but with a different assumption. Disproving the assumption is therefore the correct way to avoid similar event in the future.

You excpect me to answer absurd question, and then you refuse to answer mine, that's unfair. I assume you're a moral person, so you choosing to be unfair is a strong sign to me that you are affraid of stating things that could get you in trouble. If you're afraid to get in trouble for writing things, it means that maybe a violent answer isn't that irrational.
Not talking about a problem isn't going to solve it. You're ignoring my arguments, despite me mentionning things that are easy to check ( the contents of two books, contrarily to the real opinion of muslims).
I'm deeply despaired about most people cowardice. I'm not saying we should start killing people. But we shouldn't bend over, and call islam for what it is, and confront muslim with the ideology they believe in.

Ok. Ok..wow. Lots of heat under the collar, movie dialogues thrown around and what not

Some things are becoming clearer to me watching the interactions on this thread:

1) There seems to be very little tolerance for ideas or discussions that fall outside the 'appropriate' ones. Even in it is only discussion, there seems to be little ability to hear the other person and try for a bit to stand in their shoes and see where they might be coming from with an open mind. Judgement and defense of one's viewpoint seems to be paramount. This on a forum where participants are hopefully of a better IQ and education (in the sense of reading from a variety of disparate sources and then reflecting on it)

If we can't even have a nuanced discussion about what happened half a world away with fellow forumites, how the heck do we expect to have any kind of understanding on things that are closer home and more directly relevant to our lives like politics (left vs right) and pray what hope for the common man on the street to discuss these things in a productive manner with his fellow citizens.

You know when Franco the dictator ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975 (his death)..he had a nice tactic of how to control his people by providing an illusion of freedom without really allowing things that citizens of a free nation could do. His tactic was to allow very vigorous debate on subjects but maintain a narrow overton window. So Spaniards were free to yell and scream and write articles and argue till they turned blue in the face on whether Barcelona or Madrid had the better soccer team, or which city in Spain had the most authentic paella or bullfighting, but you couldn't much critique the church or the rule of government. More than a whole generation of people grew up under this was of government and internalized a narrow overton window. Today over 30% of the population still supports Franco while the rest are torn up about whether to exhume his body and relocate it to a more non-descript place from its current grand surroundings. Talking to older people in Spain, I found many yearn for the stability and law and order or the Franco days and are uncomfortable with what they perceived as increased chaos as they now have democracy. Ask them questions about soccer and such and they will regale you all day...ask about their thoughts on more complex issues such as self governance and dissent and you get a blank, as though their minds were never wired to consider such things.

Let us hope we don't narrow our own overton windows in discussions.

<More thoughts as I catch up and reflect some more>

I'm not sure how the analogy holds though as they are vigorously debating an issue that generally falls well outside the overton window of most places and are being allowed to do so. Also no one involved in the discussion holds any power to silence the discussion.

I don't know about the people involved in this particular discussion, but during a discussion surrounding a disagreement on a topic I tend to discuss very vehemently trying my best to take apart the others argument while presenting the strongest argument for my opinion and hope they do the same to me.If despite my best efforts they manage to dismantle my argument and provide a stronger one despite me fighting hard for the previous argument I'm more likely to switch to their position or at least seriously re-evaluate mine to see if what I believed to be true actually holds up. This can make for some harsh discussions, but I feel is the best way to improve my understanding.

Also I suspect though the discussion was sparked by an event half way across the world the discussion is heated as the event falls into a topic that for some might land closer to home in that it involved Muslim integration into western democracies and the backlash to it. Still quite distant for most Americans, but not so much for Europeans.

If you are a Muslim in let's say Afghanistan, and someone asks you "Why does this book fall to the ground when I drop it" and you respond "gravity" things are not going to be enjoyable for you. (Correct answer is because Allah willed it to fall which means you live in a voluntaristic world). Every single Muslim I know in the US left for that type of reason and I know a good many. My biggest complaint with them is that their coffee is like drinking used fucking motor oil. Do most believe in Islamic domination, I believe so, but the definition of Jihad to them is "Struggle" not "Let's blow shit up." They just think it's inevitable through spiritual means. Well that's OK. Let em think that.

That's not to deny there is always an issue with a religion that is theonomic and Islam is without question theonomic and I do believe they many have beliefs that do not comport to republican/democratic ideals. But I know Christians who also feel the same way i.e. they believe the government should get involved in the enforcement of the 10 commandments which is like really fucked up because who doesn't covet shit. My understanding is that the group receiving the most PHD's in the US are Muslims.

Extremist movements are often "rationally" driven. I mean someone can make a rational argument that is just fucking stupid based on its assumptions.. However, it's like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas. Sometimes psychopaths just gravitate to organizations that possess beliefs or tendencies that enables them to do psychopathic shit. This guy was no different then the assholes who flew the planes into the world trade center. He's either an idiot, brainwashed or a psychopath or a combination thereof.

I remember the time when muslims fleeing islam were coming to europe. Now they're probably going to the US.