Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 101 to 106 of 106

Thread: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

  1. #101
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,711

    Default Re: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Funny how that logic is always applied to Islam and never to nationalism.
    What do you mean? I can't put a nationalist on trial for thinking or believing idiotic stuff - Only for doing idiotic things. I can certainly personally judge that I don't like or agree with them, but their thoughts and beliefs are theirs - which is the sole point I'm arguing in this thread.

    Explain your lazy arguing without weasel words Heathen.
    Last edited by antaeus; August 31, 2021 at 06:10 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  2. #102

    Default Re: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

    Because if you don't blame Islam for Islamic attacks, then nationalism shouldn't be blamed in similar situations as well. It seems that there is a strong double standard, depending on which ideas allegedly motivated this or that act of violence, which is kinda hilarious if you ask me.

  3. #103
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,711

    Default Re: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Because if you don't blame Islam for Islamic attacks, then nationalism shouldn't be blamed in similar situations as well. It seems that there is a strong double standard, depending on which ideas allegedly motivated this or that act of violence, which is kinda hilarious if you ask me.
    Baseless (and in this case entirely illogical) attempted whataboutery aside... (as usual)

    I don't blame nationalism for nationalist attacks. I charge individuals for breaking the law. Certainly people's beliefs come into the charge as far as providing motive - but the motive is their personal choice/reasons on turning ideas into action. One nationalist might read a call to arms and see it as something they have to act on and kill someone. Another might read a call to arms and use it as inspiration to debate others. Nationalism isn't to blame, the choices of the individuals are.

    People can think what they want.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  4. #104

    Default Re: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    If we don't seek to contextualise and interpret the intent of their writers thousands of years ago, we're left with literalist interpretations of written behaviours suggested by things like Bibles and Korans and Talmuds and Torahs and Sutras etc all of which tell us to do what we might now subjectively consider to be abhorrent things to each other - leaving us with no moral alternative but to start banning the ideas contained in those books (banning the books alone doesn't work)... (or the more high school approach favoured by Axalon - peer pressure them away)

    As we have discovered through our Wars on Terror... ideas are very difficult to combat through direct action - particularly when they promise an afterlife. Only actions can be combatted or judged directly. Ideas can only ever be debated with. It doesn't matter if someone thinks the Bible gives them the right to commit murder under certain circumstances - what matters to society is that they committed murder - motive alone doesn't make someone guilty.
    leaving us with no moral alternative but to start banning the ideas contained in those books
    I would say there is plenty of alternatives to that. Again very disingenuous.

    After all The bible and mein kampf are not banned, and society were able to contextualize the ideas of this books.

    One of the alternatives is obviously to contextualize the ideas on the Koran. And for that you have to fight the idea. And in order to do that you cant dissociate the action with the idea.
    Just like one dont dissociate the holocaust with Nazism.
    Its that simple.

    I honestly resent the attempt of apologism, towards Islamic terrorism, because it is somehow politically correct thing to do nowadays, all in the name to combat the ghost called Islamophobia. I think Islam and its dogmas have done more harm then the supposedly phobia of it.

    Nationalism isn't to blame, the choices of the individuals are.
    If a certain idea drives an individual to a certain action, then its more then legitimate to have critical thought of that idea. So yes , because individuals and ideas dont exist in a vacuum, bad ideas are also to blame.
    Last edited by Knight of Heaven; August 31, 2021 at 11:52 PM.

  5. #105
    antaeus's Avatar Simplism
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,711

    Default Re: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    Just like one dont dissociate the holocaust with Nazism.
    Resent all you like. I'm not here to coddle you.

    To address your analogy directly - can you please tell me which Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg simply for being Nazis?

    Nazis weren't put on trial for their ideology, they were put on trial for committing atrocities, and those atrocities were identified and catalogued in detail. With there being literal millions of Germans in the party, being a member was never enough to ensure a guilty verdict. In fact, for example, Germany continued to pay war pensions to former SS members, including foreign SS veterans after the war. Being a Nazi might be subjectively abhorrent, but for some literal millions of Germans who never shot a gun, and when confronted with injustice, ducked for cover and buried their heads in the sand, it was also a survival strategy. Ideology is complicated, as are individuals.

    Either way. Perhaps you have mistaken my purpose here. I am not saying "you can't have critical discussions and debates about ideas" or "you can't challenge the teachings of religious leaders where you see them as abhorrent" That is a perhaps knee-jerk or skim-read assessment of the point I'm making, or perhaps you have mistaken me for being a cartoon critical theorist? Which would be grossly incorrect. What I am concerned about, is when we blame a collection of ideas such as a religion for the actions of individuals - when to confront individuals about why they commit violence, we must look at their individual justifications for committing it - their interpretation. When judging them in court, we can only look to them as individuals. Their belief structure might inform the case, but it is the crime itself that is judged.

    This conversation has gone a long way from being about the random guy who insulted/attacked a preacher. You can associate violence with ideology all you like, you can hate it all you like. You can dislike Muslims all you like and hate the teachings of Mohammed. What ever. That's your prerogative. But you can't charge someone with believing in an ideology. That's a bad precedent for society. In this I am responding to Axalon. Who openly stated "I would gladly abolish Islam yesterday and never look back… But the world is not quite ready for that, unfortunately. " - A direct statement of desire to ban/block/abolish a collection of ideas.
    Last edited by antaeus; September 01, 2021 at 06:12 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  6. #106

    Default Re: Female Christian activist attacked at ‘Speakers Corner’ (London)...

    To address your analogy directly - can you please tell me which Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg simply for being Nazis?
    Am i advocating for jailing people because they are Muslims? That wasn't my analogy. Again very disingenuous.....

    Your argument in a nutshell resumes itself, to, we cant blame the idea only the action, because otherwise it would lead to the banning of ideas. And im telling you that is a very disingenuous argument, because there is alternatives. You just have chosen to ignore them.

    Im saying it is valid to blame and critique an ideology for the actions of the proponents of that ideology. Its that simple.

    Of course legally you punish the action if its punishable, critically we are free to blame religion and ideology.

    So yes In context, and in good measure im going to blame Islam for Islamic terrorism. And as i mentioned before the alternative is to contextualize such ideologies. You are the one talking about banning, and arresting people for their beliefs not me.

    Resent all you like. I'm not here to coddle you.
    No apparently you are here to put arguments in my mouth.
    Last edited by Knight of Heaven; September 01, 2021 at 12:45 PM.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •