off topic The politics of terrorism

[darksabre]

I might posit that risk of a mass shooting/terrorist attack is the inherent price we pay to not have an overreaching government. Immigration, 2nd amendment, etc.

 

I'm actually surprised that Neo hasn't taken this line of thought.

This is essentially where I was going with my line of questioning.

[Neo]

I might posit that risk of a mass shooting/terrorist attack is the inherent price we pay to not have an overreaching government. Immigration, 2nd amendment, etc.

 

I'm actually surprised that Neo hasn't taken this line of thought.

We've, you know me well. It is the price we pay.

 

I would gladly board planes without a TSA that searches 9 year old girls (happened to me) and 83 year olds in wheelchairs (happened in front of me). Both women wept. I don't want my data collected, either.

 

Me to TSA: "She's nine". TSA to me: "We have to be random". Me: "Make sense to you?" TSA: "No".

 

I would, by the way, consider paying the price of larger government if and when it makes sense.

 

Freedom of choice, efficacy and assumption of risk.

This is essentially where I was going with my line of questioning.

You know me well, too. We've was more efficient!

Back after my shave, where I weighed the risk of running a razor over my face and neck against my desire for smooth skin ....

 

My price we pay doctrine: We don't give up trying to remove risks. We recognize they're there while retaining liberties. Solutions where reasonable forfeits of Liberty arise can make sense. We balance. I surrender a liberty very grudgingly. There are costs associated with surrendering, too.

 

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin.

 

 

Last edit - ascribing sinister motives, impinging character, and calling names is shameful anywhere in the debate. Shout downs and language orthodoxy are not replacements for a well constructed argument and we must all retain the intellectual honesty and courage to address that.

Edited December 10, 2015 by N'eo

[Weave]

This is essentially where I was going with my line of questioning.

 

And I personally believe that the risk is too small to sweat Muslims as a group crossing an imaginary line drawn on a map.

[Neo]

And I personally believe that the risk is too small to sweat Muslims as a group crossing an imaginary line drawn on a map.

You are an assumption of risk guy, too. Is examining the risk before deciding reasonable or bigotry?

Seems to me the US has a problem with allowing dangerous foreigners into the country.

Didn't a bunch of them eventually take up arms and overthrow the lawful government back in the late 18th century?

I'll push back against enlightened philosophers rejecting tyranny being equated to unenlightened and tyrannical fanatics intending to kill innocents (their words, not mine).

I gave up on discussing the common sense approach so I'm just waiting for the "I told you so" moment.

 

It wouldn't be the first time.

 

 

Key word.

You're one of the posters who's been called names. I've had the same "I told you so" thought. I'll bet it brings neither of us joy.

[Stoner]

Are we going to pretend that support for Trump's plan has to do with preventing a terrorist attack?

[darksabre]

We've, you know me well. It is the price we pay.

 

I would gladly board planes without a TSA that searches 9 year old girls (happened to me) and 83 year olds in wheelchairs (happened in front of me). Both women wept. I don't want my data collected, either.

 

Me to TSA: "She's nine". TSA to me: "We have to be random". Me: "Make sense to you?" TSA: "No".

 

I would, by the way, consider paying the price of larger government if and when it makes sense.

 

Freedom of choice, efficacy and assumption of risk.

You know me well, too. We've was more efficient!

Back after my shave, where I weighed the risk of running a razor over my face and neck against my desire for smooth skin ....

 

My price we pay doctrine: We don't give up trying to remove risks. We recognize they're there while retaining liberties. Solutions where reasonable forfeits of Liberty arise can make sense. We balance. I surrender a liberty very grudgingly. There are costs associated with surrendering, too.

 

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin.

 

 

Last edit - ascribing sinister motives, impinging character, and calling names is shameful anywhere in the debate. Shout downs and language orthodoxy are not replacements for a well constructed argument and we must all retain the intellectual honesty and courage to address that.

So you can see where the stalemate is with respect to the discourse over a number of these issues where American lives are at stake. When children die in a school shooting, the advocacy for "gun control" is about voicing displeasure with the amount of lives our gun ownership costs us. When the response is that "gun control" is a sacrifice of liberty and should be avoided, what is being read between the lines is that the cost in lives is expected and acceptable. Calls for inaction are perceived as calls for the maintenance of the status quo. We don't like the phrase "gun control", so we fight it. The result is acceptable death. 

 

And yet, we don't fight other "controls" that infringe on our liberties. We don't fight the Patriot Act, we don't fight No Fly Lists, we don't fight Terrorist Watch Lists, we don't fight Stop and Frisk, we don't fight No-Knock Warrants, we don't fight police checkpoints, we don't fight illegal seizure of property, we don't fight randomized TSA screenings. 

 

So the fight against "gun control" comes off as disingenuous, even if it is a valid position to take, because for many people it pales in comparison to the other violations we allow.  

 

Then we turn the coin back around again when we do things like call for restrictions on already time consuming refugee processing because we're afraid that a couple bad eggs will slip through. Are we supposed to put already traumatized people through even more? Is that right? Just to calm our fears over terrorists who still don't do as much damage as our own citizens? Is that not hypocrisy? 

 

 

 

 

[pastajoe]

Are we going to pretend that support for Trump's plan has to do with preventing a terrorist attack?

Mexicans, Black lives matter, Muslims. Predominantly white supporters. There does seem to be a pattern.

[Weave]

So you can see where the stalemate is with respect to the discourse over a number of these issues where American lives are at stake. When children die in a school shooting, the advocacy for "gun control" is about voicing displeasure with the amount of lives our gun ownership costs us. When the response is that "gun control" is a sacrifice of liberty and should be avoided, what is being read between the lines is that the cost in lives is expected and acceptable. Calls for inaction are perceived as calls for the maintenance of the status quo. We don't like the phrase "gun control", so we fight it. The result is acceptable death. 

 

And yet, we don't fight other "controls" that infringe on our liberties. We don't fight the Patriot Act, we don't fight No Fly Lists, we don't fight Terrorist Watch Lists, we don't fight Stop and Frisk, we don't fight No-Knock Warrants, we don't fight police checkpoints, we don't fight illegal seizure of property, we don't fight randomized TSA screenings. 

 

So the fight against "gun control" comes off as disingenuous, even if it is a valid position to take, because for many people it pales in comparison to the other violations we allow.  

 

Then we turn the coin back around again when we do things like call for restrictions on already time consuming refugee processing because we're afraid that a couple bad eggs will slip through. Are we supposed to put already traumatized people through even more? Is that right? Just to calm our fears over terrorists who still don't do as much damage as our own citizens? Is that not hypocrisy? 

 

 

 

 

 

I think we don't fight those things because there is a feeling of inability to make a difference.  However, we know we can fight things that haven't happened yet, so we do so more vigorously.

 

Of course, I fully  admit that I say this speaking for myself.  I know full well that there is a segment of society that doesn't see the hypocrisy of supporting stop and frisk, watch lists, etc. under the misguided idea of "if you ain't doin nuthin wrong you got nuthin to fear" while decrying gun registration.

Are we going to pretend that support for Trump's plan has to do with preventing a terrorist attack?

 

In my opinion Trump's plan is simply, I can speak to their most base fears and they will follow me like I am the pied piper.  I suspect he knows that doing something widespread to prevent terrorist attacks is theater.

[dudacek]

I'll push back against enlightened philosophers rejecting tyranny being equated to unenlightened and tyrannical fanatics intending to kill innocents (their words, not mine).

 

And for those noble reasons, one should be willing to take risks to help those fleeing unenlightened and tyrannical fanatics.

(To your argument, examining and minimizing the risk is entirely reasonable, and shaming the cautious as bigots is shameful, even though fear and bigotry are close cousins)

[Drunkard]

Isn't there an important distinction to be made between Christians in name only and Christians who truly live a Christly life? I call myself an agnostic; I've probably moderated to that point from a near-atheist stand when I was young. I think Christ's message is fantastic and live by many of those ideals — and as d4rk brilliantly pointed out, I (we) may live by and aspire to live by those ideals because they were passed down from religious people, not necessarily because they're natural laws.

 

So I refuse to take a back seat on morality to anyone who only identifies as Christian, goes to church only at Christmas and Easter, makes the sign of the cross only when Cody Franson is trying to catch up with someone on a breakaway etc. The ones with genuine faith and who live like Christ would, well, I humbly give them their props. I'm not that good.

 

You have to be religious to be a good person, or you're a good person because you're religious, is the biggest crock to ever come down the pike.

 

Those ideals do not come from religion though. Religion took those ideas because the golden rule is basic common sense that has existed since before there were any organized religions. Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. There are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need to believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribbled down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to bet even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another. Society is beneficial to humans, therefore living in groups provides safety in numbers, protection, and strength of the group. This is completely independent of the existence or need for any sort of higher being and many animals from baboons, to fish, to wolves, to lions, to gazelle, to elephants live this way without any requirement of belief in the supernatural.

 

Living in a group or society requires a certain code/set of rules that allow groups to function and thrive, otherwise the whole system could fall apart. It doesn't take belief in a deity to realize that I wouldn't want my wife or daughter to get raped and I wouldn't want to see my son get killed, and the majority of the other members in society feel the same way I do about their own families, so everyone agrees to follow the basic code/rules. The benefit of remaining a member of the group is likely what motivates people to follow the rules, even if they don't have a wife, daughter, or son that could be harmed. Acting in your own self interests at peril to the group may help an individual in the short term, but it has the potential to harm them over a longer period. Steal the food of your neighbor, or do harm to him or his family and you risk punishment or banishment from the group, and you lose the benefits that come with that. Protection from predators, sharing in the spoils of the hunt, sharing/pooling of resources during lean times, having a chance to learn specialized skills rather than having to be a jack of all trades and do a little bit of everything to survive on your own, having an easier time to find a mate from within other members of the community, and so on.

 

That's why humans have lived in groups since long before there was religion. It happened independently of the belief in any sort of God.

Edited December 10, 2015 by Drunkard

[JJFIVEOH]

This is essentially where I was going with my line of questioning.

 

Hence my note about the keyword: Americans. You'll get much more support from Rights advocates for actual Americans. 

 

You're one of the posters who's been called names. I've had the same "I told you so" thought. I'll bet it brings neither of us joy.

 

I would have no problem being proven wrong. 

[Hoss]

Hence my note about the keyword: Americans. You'll get much more support from Rights advocates for actual Americans.

What rights are you referencing? The original post from D4rk was talking about Americans being killed. Is that a right?

[darksabre]

Hence my note about the keyword: Americans. You'll get much more support from Rights advocates for actual Americans. 

 

I would have no problem being proven wrong. 

Are we not doing human rights anymore? Just American rights? 

[JJFIVEOH]

Are we not doing human rights anymore? Just American rights? 

 

Constitutional rights. They should come first.

[pastajoe]

Hence my note about the keyword: Americans. You'll get much more support from Rights advocates for actual Americans.

Except for the same people in some states who are trying to make it harder for some Americans to vote.

[Stoner]

Those ideals do not come from religion though. Religion took those ideas because the golden rule is basic common sense that has existed since before there were any organized religions. Morality is about knowing the distinction between right and wrong and believing in some sort of deity doesn't necessarily make anyone a moral person and there is no need for belief in the supernatural in order to live a life of morality. Sure there are societies with little or no religious influence that have succumbed to anarchy, but there have been plenty of religious societies that have done the same thing. There are also examples of both religious and non-religious societies that have prospered and experienced long peaceful eras.

 

You don't need to believe in a deity to realize it's wrong to kill or steal. I'm sure the Golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated was instituted long before it ever got scribbled down into the Bible. It's a simple concept to understand and I'd be willing to bet even the earliest cave men followed it in some way because it's a natural way to ensure a society thrives and there's always been safety in numbers and a need to cooperate with one another. Society is beneficial to humans, therefore living in groups provides safety in numbers, protection, and strength of the group. This is completely independent of the existence or need for any sort of higher being and many animals from baboons, to fish, to wolves, to lions, to gazelle, to elephants live this way without any requirement of belief in the supernatural.

 

Living in a group or society requires a certain code/set of rules that allow groups to function and thrive, otherwise the whole system could fall apart. It doesn't take belief in a deity to realize that I wouldn't want my wife or daughter to get raped and I wouldn't want to see my son get killed, and the majority of the other members in society feel the same way I do about their own families, so everyone agrees to follow the basic code/rules. The benefit of remaining a member of the group is likely what motivates people to follow the rules, even if they don't have a wife, daughter, or son that could be harmed. Acting in your own self interests at peril to the group may help an individual in the short term, but it has the potential to harm them over a longer period. Steal the food of your neighbor, or do harm to him or his family and you risk punishment or banishment from the group, and you lose the benefits that come with that. Protection from predators, sharing in the spoils of the hunt, sharing/pooling of resources during lean times, having a chance to learn specialized skills rather than having to be a jack of all trades and do a little bit of everything to survive on your own, having an easier time to find a mate from within other members of the community, and so on.

 

That's why humans have lived in groups since long before there was religion. It happened independently of the belief in any sort of God.

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

[MattPie]

Great post. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

 

Unfortunately it's at least the 3rd time he's had to write it here. Some people can't conceptualize that morals don't have to come from religion.

[Stoner]

Unfortunately it's at least the 3rd time he's had to write it here. Some people can't conceptualize that morals don't have to come from religion.

I agree. They don't have to, but one can acquire them from religious people, no? Does it matter? Let's be good to one another and the human race will be fine.

[Weave]

Our problems with ISIS may be over soon.  And the US may not have to lift a hand to help.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12044964/Most-wanted-Mexican-drug-lord-El-Chapo-vows-to-destroy-Islamic-State.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

 

My men will destroy you. You are not soldiers. You are nothing but lowly p------. Your god cannot save you from the true terror that my men will levy at you if you continue to impact my operation.

 

 

This. Is. Awesome.

[darksabre]

Our problems with ISIS may be over soon. And the US may not have to lift a hand to help.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12044964/Most-wanted-Mexican-drug-lord-El-Chapo-vows-to-destroy-Islamic-State.html?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook

 

 

This. Is. Awesome.

Please let them at least try to fight ISIS. I need this to be a TV series.

[Neo]

Drunkard, pA, Matt --

 

I read your posts. Am I missing something? Does someone disagree? You can find morality and ethics many places. I believe you can find them looking in a mirror.

Edited December 11, 2015 by N'eo

[Stoner]

Drunkard, pA, Matt --

 

I read your posts. Am I missing something? Does someone disagree? You can find morality and ethics many places. I believe you can find them looking in a mirror.

Do you not practice a religion that condemns us to Hell?

Edited December 11, 2015 by pASabreFan

[SarasotaSabre]

Not sure if this question belongs here or in the Presidential Politics thread - probably both:

 

Why is it that President Obama chooses to visit certain communities where a local tragedy has occurred (i.e. Charleston SC) but not others (i.e. San Bernardino)? Could it be that tricky word - OPTICS ?

 

Also found it amazing that Josh Earnest, when asked if Obama has any plans to visit SB, stated " it is not uncommon for the President to visit these communities touched so directly by an incident of gun violence." The narrative is so carefully crafted and obviously omits what this President is so consumed with denying.

[Hoss]

He's not "THIS president" he's THE president. Small language quirk that has always annoyed me when it comes to the way people talk about our current leader.

 

And what are you saying he's denying?

[SarasotaSabre]

He's not "THIS president" he's THE president. Small language quirk that has always annoyed me when it comes to the way people talk about our current leader.

 

And what are you saying he's denying?

Ok, whatever you like Hoss. Potato, potatoe. My use of "this President" was not meant to be disparaging in any way. If anything I was using the word as a point of distinction, as in "this specific President". IMHO you are a bit hypersensitive, but to each his own. I have noticed on this board that certain feathers get Ruffled when President Obama (there, is that OK?) is not accorded the proper reverence on a team hockey board, for Heaven's sake.

 

I could just as easily take issue with your description of "our current leader". Leader is not a description that comes to my mind when I hear the word used in conjunction with President Obama.

 

You really have to ask what he is denying?