Another shooting that has nothing to do with Islam

[Solomon Zorn]

Individualism is a building block of that ideal

I see what you are saying, now that you have clarified. You meant that our notion of the ideal society, resulted from Individualism - not the reverse, as you had stated originally. To some extent the superior mindset is true of many Americans, but your contention that it is the result of individualism is still a long stretch.

I got into this discussion, to refute the idea, that Shiranu put forth, that artists who portray Mohammed are in any way responsible for the violent reactions of Muslims to their work. Is it your opinion that they are?

Your statement is a good example of being cut out.

It's your perception, not your culture that is cut out.

You are in some fucking delusion if you think it is different or a few isolated religious nuts are responsible.

If you can't see the link then you don't know anything about the basic differences between Eastern and Western societies and how they see/handle the person/individual.

These statements are arrogant, condescending, an unnecessarily insulting. But I'll defend your individual right to say them.

[drunkenshoe]

I see what you are saying, now that you have clarified. You meant that our notion of the ideal society, resulted from Individualism - not the reverse, as you had stated originally. To some extent the superior mindset is true of many Americans, but your contention that it is the result of individualism is still a long stretch.

I didn't say it is the result of individualism. I said this:

You need to PRESERVE that identity and in accordance to preserve it you also need to PROMOTE it constantly, while you constantly need to demote other cultural identities. This creates a certain perception among the individuals of this group.

Furthermore, here I am talking about the application of these concepts in a negative way. They are organic concepts used very easily as a political tool. Individualism being the building block of Western identity doesn't change the fact that it comes and forth, gets shaped over and over again and even change when a recognition of a new trait becomes beneficial to the state. (Gay marriage and legalisation of weed are good examples for the last decade)The link of individualism to our conversation as a starting point, doesn't exempt it from being some sort of an agent working independently in this dynamic.

I got into this discussion, to refute the idea, that Shiranu put forth, that artists who portray Mohammed are in any way responsible for the violent reactions of Muslims to their work. Is it your opinion that they are?

No, they are not. However, it is as much a 'freedom of speech issue' as the White Christians' claim that gay marriage 'threats' their 'freedom of religion' in the US is a 'freedom of religion issue'.

I tried to give a whole picture as much as I can. Tried to use some material to support it, to put in some context why I thought it's much bigger than that.

These statements are arrogant, condescending, an unnecessarily insulting. But I'll defend your individual right to say them.

No, they are not. They are simple observations from the material you provided me about your perception and directly linked to what I was explaining to you. Also when I am talking about basic concepts and their relations like 'individualism' and 'identity', usually -like everyone else- I naturally think it's obvious. After all, we are not talking based on some home cooked definitions of those concepts. But yes, I snapped at you after you called me arrogant.

Think about my position in this forum. I'm a foreigner. I have walked the half of the road, trying to explain something to you in a language which is foriegn to me. And when I am saying something in an assertive manner, coming to a conclusion with what you gave to me and say 'you are wrong, because your perception is cut out' you automatically think I am being arrogant. Think about that. Be honest to yourself and observe what do you think when a Westerner, particularly a male 'talks' like that in a heated discussion. However, I don't think your reaction is conscious, I should add that.

[Solomon Zorn]

Firstly, I feel I should clarify one of your quotes, by adding the previous paragraph:

After the shooting, an ISIS propagandist that Simpson had earlier asked his readers to follow tweeted, "Allahu Akbar!!!! 2 of our brothers just opened fire" at the Texas event.

"If there is no check on the freedom of your speech, then let your hearts be open to the freedom of our actions," tweeted the propagandist, who was identified by two American groups that monitor jihadi websites as Junaid Hussain, a British ISIS fighter in Syria who goes by the name Abu Hussein al Britani.

You made it sound like Simpson had been identified as the propagandist.

That being cleared up, let's discuss American extremists.

One suspect, identified as Elton Simpson by a federal law enforcement source, linked himself to ISIS in a tweet posted just before the attack.

What does the first letter in ISIS stand for? Islamic. And that is what attracts American Muslims. They may be Muslim, but they are still American, and probably have little grasp of, or concern about international problems. They are all about the Holy Jihad.

Moments before the shootout, Simpson posted an ominous tweet with the hashtag #texasattack: "May Allah accept us as mujahideen."

So we have, in his own words, his intention to serve Allah with this attack. Clearly a religious motive.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-shooting-gunmen/

[aitm]

Really? For 3 years you have struggled with me, scolded me with 'you keep pissing people off and noone reads your posts and whatever you have to say goes poof". Now, I am not 'tough' or 'hostile' enough. Is there a way I can win?

Especially, with your perception of me as an anti-american middle eastern woman who is having an american rant for kicks. Nice prejudice.

You assumed this was directed at you, not at all, not even in my thoughts, not even remotely, not even...well it was not. So.....

[Solomon Zorn]

No, they are not. However, it is as much a 'freedom of speech issue' as the White Christians' claim that gay marriage 'threats' their 'freedom of religion' in the US is a 'freedom of religion issue'.

Not true. It is all about the freedom to say what you think. Especially when it's offensive.

And when I am saying something in an assertive manner, coming to a conclusion with what you gave to me and say 'you are wrong, because your perception is cut out' you automatically think I am being arrogant. Think about that. Be honest to yourself and observe what do you think when a Westerner, particularly a male 'talks' like that in a heated discussion. However, I don't think your reaction is conscious, I should add that.

Don't even try that. I didn't even know you were a woman, when I said that. In fact I wasn't sure if you were foreign to the US, precisely because your English is so good..

How is saying, “your perception is cut out,” not condescending? However, I don't think your superiority is conscious, I should add that.

[pr126]

Don't you find it odd that the jihadist after each murder, atrocity, rape, slave taking etc. are categorically stating that their deeds were inspired by Islam, even quoting the relevant Quran verses to justify that their deeds are indeed religiously motivated.

Immediately our elected leaders and the media are publicly contradicting the perpetrators, saying that their actions have nothing to do with Islam.
They are not "real" Muslims, and do not represent Islam.

Why is that? Why defend the ideology that inspired the atrocities?

When anyone reads the freely available Islamic scriptures knows that the jihadist in fact do follow Islam and its teachings as it is written.

[drunkenshoe]

Firstly, I feel I should clarify one of your quotes, by adding the previous paragraph: You made it sound like Simpson had been identified as the propagandist.

I didn't write those. They are taken from the sites I gave you. 

That being cleared up, let's discuss American extremists.What does the first letter in ISIS stand for? Islamic. And that is what attracts American Muslims. They may be Muslim, but they are still American, and probably have little grasp of, or concern about international problems. They are all about the Holy Jihad.So we have, in his own words, his intention to serve Allah with this attack. Clearly a religious motive.

I am not going to repeat the same things. I don't agree with this. You are doing the exact same thing I told you in your imaginary demise post. Most of you are. And it sounds like believers' resistence to idea of evolution. You keep saying 'god created us, period, because there is no other possibility' without considering a mountain of countless factors and dynamics at work, researches made on it, doesn't matter how much it is explained to you. The reason is your perception. None of it goes through it and you think, the it must be wrong. You don't even consider them. You completely distance it the culture you live in and strip the issue from human condition and anything related to that, reduce it to some personal fanatism. And treat it like an isolated anomaly. It's not.

Religion and personal fanatism is not an explanation for a white christian european born young men and women from middle class families leaving their home to fight for ISIS. A white American doesn't have to have a 'concern' about international policies to experience a radical shift in his identity.

People do NOT suddenly become murderous nuts of a religion of an opposite culture which is constantly demoted, humiliated, looked down on, condemned in the society they were born into while their own is a promoted identity. These people are not from one area of the world. They are from Europe and USA. And no you cannot get out from this by 'it's for the Holy Jihad'. It's barren.

Anyway, I'm tired of this. We clearly don't agree. Then we'll agree to disagree. It's an impass. I need to work and I also need to eat. I'm  :sad2:starving, I have been working since the wee hours, my eyes are burning. 

[drunkenshoe]

You assumed this was directed at you, not at all, not even in my thoughts, not even remotely, not even...well it was not. So.....

OK. I love you too. FOOOOOOOOD! Can't you feed me from there?

[drunkenshoe]

Not true. It is all about the freedom to say what you think. Especially when it's offensive.
Don't even try that. I didn't even know you were a woman, when I said that. In fact I wasn't sure if you were foreign to the US, precisely because your English is so good..

How is saying, “your perception is cut out,” not condescending? However, I don't think your superiority is conscious, I should add that.

I don't live in the US. I live in Turkey. I have never lived anywhere other than Turkey. I have visited the US and Europe for short times. Apparently my English is not good enough, you keep thinking I am insulting you. 

Anyway, let's agree to disagree. I am really tired of this.

[Solomon Zorn]

Yeah, we're just going in circles. I was about to suggest we wrap it up, as well. No hard feelings. Have a good day!

[Ace101]

Thankfully no one (innocent) was killed, but... fuck, this intentionally poking beehives that is so prevalent in our culture is getting old as fuck real fast.

Why, just because we have the freedom to, do we feel the need to be assholes for the sake of being assholes? It's just pathetic. And if anyone had gotten injured or killed, the blood would be on their hands as well and people here and in our culture would be defending them because "they had the freedom to hit the beehive with a stick".

I think they have every right to hold the exhibit, but I think we should not encourage it and condemn them for being assholes who are putting people's lives at risk just so they can get off on being controversial.

If it was Christian terrorists attacking a pro-abortion rally no one would be blaming the victims for "being too controversial". This politically correct appeasement needs to go to hell.

[Shiranu]

If it was Christian terrorists attacking a pro-abortion rally no one would be blaming the victims for "being too controversial". This politically correct appeasement needs to go to hell.

Yes, because pro-abortion rallies are totally the same as holding an "art" exhibit as a "fuck you" to the other guy.

Totally the same.

Yep.

Also, nice comic: "They are doing bad things, so we should too!"

[Ace101]

Yes, because pro-abortion rallies are totally the same as holding an "art" exhibit as a "fuck you" to the other guy.

Totally the same.

Yep.

Also, nice comic: "They are doing bad things, so we should too!"

How is it "bad" anymore than this:



The only difference is that Christians aren't plotting to murder people for poking fun at their religion - but if they were you'd and sympathize with the Christian terrorists and blame the victims no doubt.

[Shiranu]

How is it "bad" anymore than this:



The only difference is that Christians aren't plotting to murder people for poking fun at their religion - but if they were you'd and sympathize with the Christian terrorists and blame the victims no doubt.

:roll:

It takes a special type of stupid to be that intentionally dense.

Also, nice attempt at throwing personal insults at me, especially when they run completely contrary to anything I said in this thread. At least previous attempts were witty, I give this one a 1/15 for effort.

[pr126]

Whatever happened to  "Je suis Charlie"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKerbOi_mrI