Reprinting inflamatory cartoons

[jheath]

This morning I came across an item in the news which I had been expecting for a few days now:

 

Muslim cartoon fury claims lives [bBC]

 

To provide a short synopsis: a few months ago a Danish newspaper punished several cartoons which ridiculed Islam, depicting the so-called 'prophet' Mohammed in a very unflattering light. (Strict Islam forbids any depiction of Mohammed, let alone a satirical one.) Recently the cartoons were republished, sparking an outburst of fury amoung Muslims, predominantly in the Middle East but also among those residing in Europe. In response to demands for various punishments of those responsible for the cartoons, some European diplomats apologized, while others defended the publication as free speech. Several newspapers across Europe defiantly reprinted the cartoons to emphasize their right to press freedom.

 

Rage against the cartoons in the Muslim world has flared. Calls for assassination of various westerners have been spread in blogs and mosques, bomb threats have been made, embassies have been burned. Now we have people killed... all as a result of finding a few cartoons offensive.

 

To be honest, the news didn't surpise me in the least. It is difficult for my opinion of the Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East to get much lower. On the other hand, who knows... they've managed to do quite a job of setting the bar to new lows so far.

 

However, the topic I'd like to debate isn't the behavior of the muslims... it's the behavior of the Western press. Was the reprinting of the cartoons the best course of action? Are they in a way responsible for the deaths of those people killed by Muslims outraged by the cartoons? Which is more important: not provoking a culture clash, or making a statement about freedom of the press?

 

I'll post my thoughts on these questions once the ball starts rolling. Have fun...

 

(P.S. Rown, feel free to contribute to this one... no need to be afriad )

[TheJkWhoSaysNi]

I love the irony of the whole situation. The danish cartoon suggests that muslims are violent and the muslims respond by voilently attacking embassies. Brilliant.

 

 

Was the reprinting of the cartoons the best course of action?

 

Yeah. I dont see how it's different. Surley once the cartoon has been printed once any reprinting is of the same depiction of mohammed. Anyway, the whole thing is completley taken over the top. If you're offended by a cartoon. Don't read it. Simple as that. They did something which goes aginst your beliefs? So what? Not everyone believes in the same thing! Get over it.

 

 

Are they in a way responsible for the deaths of those people killed by Muslims outraged by the cartoons?

 

No. Not at all. It's absurd. It's like blaming video games for violence. It's the people commiting the murders that are to blame.

 

 

 

 

which is more important: not provoking a culture clash, or making a statement about freedom of the press?

 

Free speech. Always free speech. Free speech is much better than not saying anything unless you offend someone. If that were the case then nobody could say anything.

 

wow, I sound really to the free speech side of this debate. Well I guess I am.

[Reincarnated]

Tell me what you would expected to happen if those cartoons were printed? Everyone would laugh and wouldn't care?

 

And don't give that freedom of speech bullsh*t. So what if a child molester wanted to "express" himself by starting a cartoon about grown men molesting kids? Is that alright? Oh wait, because thats wrong right? You say that its wrong (though it is obviously) that a child molester should have the right to express him/herself even though thats what you stand by. Well, if you don't think thats right, don't look. Well maybe some people find it offensive if something that they consider important to them is made fun of. If you're going to give the cartoon writer their freedom of speech, because you consider it okay then you might aswell say the say the same thing about the child molester.

 

Now, don't get me wrong, I think its utterly insultive that as a human race we even should spread hate across eachother and it would've been handled better if everyone just ignored it But obviously, the mass media had other ideas.. The way the world works, in this day and age, we shouldn't even bother.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Reincarnated

[K^2]

Now, wasn't publishing of the cartoons aimed at accenting the ignorance of the general European population about Islam that the article talked about? People allways take things out of context and blow them out of proportions.

 

And @Reincarnated, making fun of someone's, that is anyone's, religion is not the same thing as molesting children. So hypothetical depiction of one shouldn't be used as an argument against the depiction of the other.

[Lwekk]

The fact that they are getting this irate regarding something very stupid is great, they are preaching something that says you need to be tolerant of all Muslims and society, BUT... we will behead reporters and blow people up for not believing in their religion among other reasons. If they want us to be tolerant they must be also.

 

this violence in completely unecessary

[jheath]

 

If they want us to be tolerant they must be also.

Actually, if we're to believe their more extreme proponents, they don't want us to be tolerant... they want us to be fanatical muslims like themselves, or dead.

 

It is easy to throw charges of hypocrisy either way, actually. The Iranian government, for example, points out that the West claims to honor freedom of speech when it comes to anti-muslim cartoons, yet objects when their President talks of a Jewish conspiracy or denies the holocaust. They claim we are just as intolerant of contrary opinion as they are. The fact that they themselves have been printing racist and hate-filled cartoons for years with impunity is something the islamofacists easily overlook in their rush to call us hypocrites.

 

 

And don't give that freedom of speech bullsh*t. So what if a child molester wanted to "express" himself by starting a cartoon about grown men molesting kids? Is that alright?

 

Leaving aside K^2's very valid point that lampooning religion is qualitatively different from child molestation, I say "yes... freedom of speech is more important than not offending people." The child molester should be thrown in prison of molesting children, but he should be free to offer his cartoons to whoever he can convince to publish them. Likewise, I would be free to write angry letters to the editor, and boycott the publication, as would every other person offended by it. I would defend the child molester's right to speech, not because I like what he has to say, but because it is the only way to ensure my own right to speak freely.

 

Likewise, a lot of papers republished the cartoons, not because they particularly believed in their provocative message, but because they wanted to make a statement that press freedom is not something which should be surrendered.

 

---

 

Back to the issue of publishing the cartoons. I think TheJk (sorry, your full nick is too long) got it exactly right in pointing out that it is the muslim rioters who bear responsibility for the lives lost, not the newspapers. Saying otherwise buys into the notion that muslims in the Middle East are incapable of basic moral judgements, such as knowing better not to kill others when made fun of. I'd rather condemn them as the killers they are than apply a racist lower standard. Sure the cartoons were inflamatory... but you and I wouldn't go on a rampage if we saw a cartoon which upset us, and I don't think it's too much to expect that neither should they.

 

[K^2]

I'm not entirely sure that the free speech is the best way to go about things, but if the government has geared the policies twoards free speech, it should be free speech all the way. You cannot make rules that go along the lines of, "You can say what you want. Anything at all. Oh, except you cannot say this and that, because these people over there will get offended," call it a free speech, and not expect a negative responce. If the policy is free speech, one should be allowed to say things that will offend everyone else, and everyone else has the right to tell that person to shut the f*ck up. Whoever escalates from verbal fight to physical violence first is in the wrong and should be prosecuted with no regard to who called whose diety a what.

 

That said, there is still the question of whether there should be a right for free speech at all. Maybe it would be all peaceful and quiet if everyone was heavily censored. I would not be particularly happy with laws that state what I can and cannot say, but I am not happy with speed limits either, yet most people will agree that we are better off with them.

[Otter]

 

there is still the question of whether there should be a right for free speech at all.

 

...There is?

 

As much as Iago was responsible for the death of Desdemona, he wasn't the pair of hands that strangled her.

[K^2]

Of course there is a question. Democracy requires free speech, but democracy also assumes that people actually know what is good for them. Most people, however, do not. Fortunately, they are easily pursuaded by others, which results in a smaller, on average more inteligent group running everything. Now, you can keep it formally democratic, and then you need free speech, elections, and such; or you can organize it as oligarchy, and then the people who run the country can descide what others should and should not say. There are, of course, certain pitfalls to oligarchy, such as dangers of overgrowing into aristocracy and poor feedback, but there are plenty of problems with any form of government.

[Naomi]

"It's not what you call me. But what I answer too"

 

An old African proverb I live by.

 

What a person says, writes or illustrates about any component of your existence is not a reflection on you, but on them.

If I responded to or got irrate every time I heard a tired cliche about being a woman or an atheist or a sole parent or a blonde, I'd never get out of bed in the morning.

 

The best I can hope to do is keep being honest about who am & what I do with my life & do it well. Basically squashing any ignorance or 'offensive' remark by not bowing down to it or fuelling it further.

 

Anyone who responds so harshly to anything said whether it be satirical, offensive, off hand or oppositional are only stating that they fear there's some truth to it.

 

Ultimately, silencing someone's opinion about who you are, what you believe or what you represent won't work with outrage or extremeties.

Instead by not living down to their expectations of you, they'll silence themselves voluntarily.

Edited February 21, 2006 by Naomi

[Demarest]

Thank you, Naomi. I just learned something Well put.

[Otter]

However - we're not dealing with mere personal insult here - these are a people who have this faith so ingrained in their culture that they are not above what we may think of as petty. In fact, to them, displaying Mohammed is a grave sin. A sin that has been punished since long before the fall of Constantinople.

 

So, although you make a good point, Naomi, I don't think cutting you down for being a woman quite equates, relatively, to the insult these people feel at the publication of an image of Muhammed - let alone a satirical image.

 

So, as much as I despise the mentality of such groups - I have trouble belittling their outrage.

[K^2]

Sure, maybe they are culturally programed to have such an outburst and respond with violence to these cartoons. It might excuse the individuals, but not the group. In a multicultural world, people have to learn to tolerate other ways of thinking. If you cannot, and you react to these things with violence, you have to be prepared for others to retaliate. Someone is going to have to give in. Either the entire world will convert to a single culture, or all of the cultures that hope to remain would have to become more tolerant. These are the only options, and I really do not see the first one happening.

[Otter]

I'm not suggesting that this excuses such behavior, but it's a helpful stepping stone to further understanding and future prevention of it - without breaking our own codes of virtue.

[jersiq]

 

In a multicultural world, people have to learn to tolerate other ways of thinking.

 

How ironic that statement is, given the context of the debate. I could easily use the same argument against the publishers of the cartoon.

[K^2]

I'm not suggesting that this excuses such behavior, but it's a helpful stepping stone to further understanding and future prevention of it - without breaking our own codes of virtue.

But does it need to be even prevented? I think that an overwhelming majority of people would agree that attacking an embassy of a country in which an independant newspaper has printed a few political cartoons is taking things way too far. If these kinds of incidents keep occuring, the groups that cause trouble will run into problems with the rest of the world, eventually weeding out such groups through conflict. Maybe there will be a few bloody wars as a result, but when it is all over, the world's population would be more tollerant of eachother's differences. And that's a good thing, is it not?

 

How ironic that statement is, given the context of the debate. I could easily use the same argument against the publishers of the cartoon.

Naturally, it is a two sided argument. You will never have a perfect world where everyone perfectly respects each other. But printing cartoons and starting riots are not exactly the same thing.

[Otter]

 

eventually weeding out such groups through conflict

 

That's a solution? Well, hell, why don't we just napalm the demostrations then?

 

My point is: by preventing violent demonstrations through better understanding, we can avoid bloodshed.

 

 

Maybe there will be a few bloody wars as a result, but when it is all over, the world's population would be more tollerant of eachother's differences.

 

Yes, because that sure has worked in the past, right? Are you seriously suggesting that we spur on more and more violence until it kills itself off?

 

Why don't you fly over to Isreal, and ask the man on the street how that plan's working out for them.

[K^2]

It doesn't work right away. It takes time. Look at Europe. Over a thousand years of bloody wars, and now the region is very peaceful. Why? WWII. When people realize that if they keep attacking each other they can be completely whiped out, they tend to become a lot more likely to compromise. Same thing will happen in other parts of the world, but it might take something equally dramatic to trigger the change.

[Otter]

 

It doesn't work right away. It takes time. Look at Europe. Over a thousand years of bloody wars, and now the region is very peaceful. Why? WWII. When people realize that if they keep attacking each other they can be completely whiped out, they tend to become a lot more likely to compromise. Same thing will happen in other parts of the world, but it might take something equally dramatic to trigger the change.

World War II was sixty years ago. Historically speaking - that's practically yesterday. And furthermore, to suggest that World War II was beneficial to Europe is ridiculous.

 

Besides, I think you're forgetting that the UK is currently at war, and was recently the vicitim of a terrorist attack. As was Spain. And France had it's own problems with Islam just this past summer. Russia is still crippled.

 

Anyhow, back to the matter at hand..."it doesn't work right away." What doesn't work right away? Peace via apathy? If utopia does exist, it will surely not rise from the ashes of war. Life just isn't that poetic. Tolerance is not bourne from the decimation of the opposition.

 

There has to be a better way of dealing with things then letting them "burn off some steam," as it were. Especially if the process requires the loss of human life.

Edited February 23, 2006 by Otter

[K^2]

Of course, there are still external conflicts. But states that make up Wester Europe, at least, are no longer at war with each other as they have been for hundreds of years preceding WWI and WWII. And yes, WWII is responcible for it more than anything. WWI showed that the old idea of glorious battles was out, and a battlefield brings only death to both sides. WWII showed how trully destructive a war can be. Nothing keeps population peaceful better than fear of mutual anihilation.

 

When I was talking about the efects taking time, I was not talking about outcomes of WWII. These were imediate in historic perspective. I was refering to all the conflicts preceding it. Certain level of technology of destruction has had to be achieved before the war became so horrible that people would finaly learn to come to compromises rather than try to solve problems by force. Development of nuclear weapons, of course, was the most important step in this process. In just a couple of decades from the first nuclear test the war turned from something remote that is fought out there on the battlefields into something that can claim lives of anyone anywhere, regardles of race, culture, income, religion, or political afiliation, in under an hour.

 

I do not suggest "decimation of opposition", either. I am talking about destruction of anyone who does not wish to compromise caused by their own action. When a group reacts with violence to anything different from their own ways, these groups tend to turn a lot of other groups against them, eventually leading to the former group's destruction. That is a good thing. That is darwinian evolution of cultures. These cultures that cannot become tolerant to other cultures, which is a requirement in this globalizing world, will be destroyed. Everybody else will only benefit from it, so there is no reason to try to apeace these violent groups. It only dellays the process.

[Otter]

 

When a group reacts with violence to anything different from their own ways, these groups tend to turn a lot of other groups against them, eventually leading to the former group's destruction. That is a good thing. That is darwinian evolution of cultures.

 

Can you give me an example?

 

Anyhow, I don't think sitting things out and waiting for them to work themselves out is a viable option. The immediate threat is looming, and we need to learn how to properly deal with it - without blowing the sh*t out of any group.

[K^2]

I am not saying that nothing should be done. I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that if every time someone reacts with violence to a few political cartoons we respond by censoring ourselves, we are only encouraging such violent outbursts. If instead it is treated as a riot and punished accordingly, maybe next time people won't respond with violence, making the world just a little better place. As a corallary, anything that causes such a violent outburst, such as these cartoons, as long as the situation is responded to properly, is a good thing, since, as stated above, it make the world a better place.

[Mortukai]

So, basically, what you're proposing, is an unending and exponentially excacerbating spiral of destruction?

 

Side A has some things they don't like.

Side B does some dumb useless sh*t specifically to offend side A.

Side A gets pissed and reacts with a violent outburst.

Side B thinks "WTF?" and reacts with a bigger violent outburst to put Side A in their place.

Side A thinks Side B is clearly out to get them, as in their point of view, Side A were the instigators, and so Side A defend themselves with even more violence.

Sides C,D and E think this was mightily evil of Side A, so they get in and help Side B out to kick Side A's ass.

Sides F, G and H think that ganging up on someone is pretty f*cked, so they help out Side A to kick Sides B, C, D and E's asses.

 

Hooray for world war!

 

Yes K^2, it appears that you have clearly found the answer to our problems. You should publish your "Respond to all hints of violence with more violence" theory and gain international acclaim for your work towards the betterment of humankind. Although your radical revolutionary ideas might take a while to be accepted. God knows how hard it is for humans to be vengeful and to perpetuate crimes done against them.

[K^2]

If you were paying attention, you would see that I just argued that the previous World Wars were clearly beneficial to the situation in Europe in the long run. So your argument that these kinds of actions can start another World War is only suporting my thesis. If you were trying to prove me wrong, you started at the wrong place.

[Otter]

If you were paying attention, you would see that I just argued that the previous World Wars were clearly beneficial to the situation in Europe in the long run. So your argument that these kinds of actions can start another World War is only suporting my thesis. If you were trying to prove me wrong, you started at the wrong place.

Excuse me, what? You may have 'argued' something, but it doesn't change the fact that you are tragically wrong.

[K^2]

If I'm wrong, that's what he should be starting with and trying to prove me wrong. Speaking of which, I have not seen any convincing arguments that WWII was bad for Europe from you either. So unless you actually have a good argument to counter mine, you can't go arround claiming that it is wrong.

[Mortukai]

Well K^2, for starters, your argument, strictly speaking, is ad hoc ergo proptor hoc, and is thus a logical fallacy. Whilst this doesn't necessarily invalidate your conclusion, it does invalidate your line of reasoning, that because after WWII there have been no more wars in Europe, that therefore WWII was good for Europe in creating peace. One could easily see this argument as false when one considers the fact that WWII was, clearly, the 2nd such war, and that by this simple fact, we can conclude that world war is not enough to stop more war.

 

Secondly, if we assume that your argument is either that WWII specifically was the ideal result of violence, or that wars of a similar magnitude like WWII are ideal, then we must acknowledge that it is still yet incredibly early days to be making such an assumption. The old, "problem of induction" creeps up here, in that given the (historically speaking) incredibly short period of time since the end of WWII, it is still far too early to conclude that WWII will be the last war waged in Europe among European countries. Things could change in a few weeks, a few years, a few decades, or a few centuries, but your argument currently does not provide sufficient premises to conclude that the current state of relative peace will last indefinitely due to WWII. Indeed, given the historical record of every nation and culture on the planet for which we know anything about, we can see that there are indeed periods of time, in many cases lasting hundreds of years, where there are no wars. But then there are wars, and some of these last for hundreds of years. If anyone was alive during these periods of peace, and made the claim that the last war was clearly the ideal because it resulted in so much peace, then we could clearly see that they would have been wrong. Again, it's the combined problem of induction and ad hoc ergo proptor hoc.

 

So, I think it's safe to say then, that the occurance of war and violence is not, in fact, predicated on the existence of further more violence. It's safe to conclude that violence instead can be sparked by many things, not least of which is violence, but can also extend to things such as the honor of a woman, the lust of a man, property, title, possessions, reputation, etc etc. The best way to get rid of violence is not to add to it, but to remove from it. I would have thought that such a concept would be incredibly obvious to all but the most dimwitted american hillbilly patriots, but then I remembered that you're the one that argued that it's ok to rape and slaughter infants if you can get away with it. So I'm going to spell it out for you in a language you can understand:

 

Let "violence" be 1.

 

1-1=0

 

1+1=2. 2>1. 2+1=3. 3>2. 3+1=4. 4>3. 4+1=5. 5>4. and so ad infinitum.

 

5>4>3>2>1.

 

Clearly, contributing to the violence with more violence is only going to result in.... more violence. Wow.

 

Now, given that you've been citing WWII as your holy grail, I can predict that you'll probably try to say "But Mort, even though thou art clearly superior to me in every way, having a gigantic pair of balls dwarfed only by your intellect, can you not see that WWII ended, and thus I am right?" To which I would respond "No you fool!" WWII only ended because a third party brought in a weapon that pretty much killed everyone. If European countries weren't so torn apart by the war, they may have had the resources to build a similar counter-offensive, but seeing as how the US sat by and built up its big weapon while the other sides weakened themselves, this didn't happen. You might think that this is the basis of your whole argument: that when there is enough violence, all the violent people kill themselves off and we are left with an ideal darwinian evolution of cultures. But you are wrong, because this does not result in anything like what you think. It results in the side most willing to use the biggest weapons surviving. In other words, it's survival of the most violent. Thus your blatantly oblivious attempts to claim that more violence will eventually kill violence and intolerance off, is clearly stupid, as it only results in the most violent and intolerant side surviving.

 

Wow, it's scary how close my argument is to the reality that we observe today, and how far away yours is.

[K^2]

 

Well K^2, for starters, your argument, strictly speaking, is ad hoc ergo proptor hoc, and is thus a logical fallacy. Whilst this doesn't necessarily invalidate your conclusion, it does invalidate your line of reasoning, that because after WWII there have been no more wars in Europe, that therefore WWII was good for Europe in creating peace. One could easily see this argument as false when one considers the fact that WWII was, clearly, the 2nd such war, and that by this simple fact, we can conclude that world war is not enough to stop more war.

First of all, if you are going to use Lattin, please make sure you spell it correctly. The correct spelling is "propter". When dealing with dead languages, it makes things a lot simplier.

 

Now, yes, it was a completely inductive argument, and inductive arguments are logically unsound. Nevertheles, the conclusion of an inductive argument tends to be true, and if there is no deductive argument, as there cannot be in a case with this many variables, the conclusion of an inductive argument can be assumed true when there is no better argument and no empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Secondly, if we assume that your argument is either that WWII specifically was the ideal result of violence, or that wars of a similar magnitude like WWII are ideal, then we must acknowledge that it is still yet incredibly early days to be making such an assumption. The old, "problem of induction" creeps up here, in that given the (historically speaking) incredibly short period of time since the end of WWII, it is still far too early to conclude that WWII will be the last war waged in Europe among European countries. Things could change in a few weeks, a few years, a few decades, or a few centuries, but your argument currently does not provide sufficient premises to conclude that the current state of relative peace will last indefinitely due to WWII. Indeed, given the historical record of every nation and culture on the planet for which we know anything about, we can see that there are indeed periods of time, in many cases lasting hundreds of years, where there are no wars. But then there are wars, and some of these last for hundreds of years. If anyone was alive during these periods of peace, and made the claim that the last war was clearly the ideal because it resulted in so much peace, then we could clearly see that they would have been wrong.

There were times of peace, but nothing even close to how things are now. Thre was never any attempt to create a state of union that the countries of Europe are currently in, other than by millitary conquest. I'd also add to it the fact that they actually tied their economies together by common currency, but since the fiat money is a new concept, it cannot really be compared to old European economy based on gold standart.

 

 

So, I think it's safe to say then, that the occurance of war and violence is not, in fact, predicated on the existence of further more violence. It's safe to conclude that violence instead can be sparked by many things, not least of which is violence, but can also extend to things such as the honor of a woman, the lust of a man, property, title, possessions, reputation, etc etc. The best way to get rid of violence is not to add to it, but to remove from it. I would have thought that such a concept would be incredibly obvious to all but the most dimwitted american hillbilly patriots, but then I remembered that you're the one that argued that it's ok to rape and slaughter infants if you can get away with it. So I'm going to spell it out for you in a language you can understand:

 

Let "violence" be 1.

 

1-1=0

 

1+1=2. 2>1. 2+1=3. 3>2. 3+1=4. 4>3. 4+1=5. 5>4. and so ad infinitum.

 

5>4>3>2>1.

 

Clearly, contributing to the violence with more violence is only going to result in.... more violence. Wow.

If you can clearly describe the group of adition of violence, state what the elements of the set on which you perform operation are, what is the identity element, and how we compare two elements of such set with "greater than", we can talk about it in mathematical terms. Untill then, you are just making a fool of yourself and probably not even realizing that.

 

Yes, adding to violence results in more violence, but not responding to violence allows violence to grow as well. You have to account for that. When somebody starts a riot, we cannot sit and say that it is Ok, because they were offended by some cartoons, and if we are to respond to it, it will only add to the violence. In the worst case scenario, when a chain reaction of violence causing more violence happens and it leads to a major war, people who come out of this war understand better the value of peace, and they will be less likely to start a riot over cartoons.

 

 

WWII only ended because a third party brought in a weapon that pretty much killed everyone.

WWII was over, even if it hasn't yet ended, with capitulation of Germany in May of '45. Nuclear weapons have not been used untill August, which merely resulted in capitulation of Japan, which, by that point, had no way of continuing the war. Yes, the use of Nuclear weapons still saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in naval assault on Japan, but it has not turned the tide of that war.

 

 

You might think that this is the basis of your whole argument: that when there is enough violence, all the violent people kill themselves off and we are left with an ideal darwinian evolution of cultures. But you are wrong, because this does not result in anything like what you think. It results in the side most willing to use the biggest weapons surviving. In other words, it's survival of the most violent. Thus your blatantly oblivious attempts to claim that more violence will eventually kill violence and intolerance off, is clearly stupid, as it only results in the most violent and intolerant side surviving.

Lets look at WWI. Both sides has brought in weapons that have not existed before. Most notably, the machine guns and tanks. It has not secured the victory for either side. In fact, the more powerful the weaopns got, the less progres there was. Eventually, the battlefield became the place of death for many soldiers without allowing either side to gain anything. The more complex get the weapons, the more destructive and pointles is the war. In the age of swords and arrows, capturing a castle could have secured your control over an area allowing you to get rich of the area's resources. Now, there is no such wall that can protect you, any place in the world can become a part of the battlefield in less than a day, and defending any particular location is impossible, because if the enemy really wants you out of it, they'll just bomb the crap out of it.

 

Yes, there are still places in the world were people are armed with nothing better than machine guns, and war can actually be used to capture and defend important areas. Which is the whole reason why US currently maintains the troops in Iraq. Do you really think that anything similar can be possible if, say, United States and Europe enter into a war against each other? No. Never. Both sides are too technologically advanced to be tied in such a conflict. If such a war breaks out, it will be over in less than a week, with most of US and Europe laying in ruins, even if neither side uses nuclear weapons.

[Otter]

Mort is far more adept than I am to counter what you've written. Yet I would really like to see you set precedent for:

 

 

but nothing even close to how things are now.

 

 

[Mortukai]

 

First of all, if you are going to use Lattin, please make sure you spell it correctly. The correct spelling is "propter". When dealing with dead languages, it makes things a lot simplier.

If you're going to school me on the use of a "dead" language, perhaps you should attempt to master the use of our current one. Last I checked, "simplier", "standart", "nevertheles", "adition", "untill", "weaopns", "progres", and "pointles" were not currently accepted spellings. Furthermore, when speaking in the past tense, it is proper to use "had" in place of "has" and "have", which are present tense (unless moderated by a past tense "-ed" word). Were it not for my prior knowledge, upon reading your post I would have assumed that you thought WWI was still taking place.

 

So until you can converse with me using english at least as accurately as I do, perhaps you should refrain from attempting to correct my usage of ancient latin. Judge not, lest ye be judged yourself.

 

 

Now, yes, it was a completely inductive argument, and inductive arguments are logically unsound. Nevertheles, the conclusion of an inductive argument tends to be true, and if there is no deductive argument, as there cannot be in a case with this many variables, the conclusion of an inductive argument can be assumed true when there is no better argument and no empirical evidence to the contrary.

Um, since when? "The weather has been fine and sunny for many months. Therefore, the weather will be fine and sunny for the foreseeable future". That there was an inductive argument that is clearly wrong, and certainly could not tend to be true. In fact, the vast majority of all inductive arguments tend to be false, unless they predict that change will occur, because thus far, change is the only constant. If you want to get technical, entropic change will be the most likely result, so any inductive argument that predicts some form of entropic change will tend to be correct. Unfortunately for you, this is counter to your whole position, which predicts permanent stability from fluctuating chaos.

 

 

There were times of peace, but nothing even close to how things are now. Thre was never any attempt to create a state of union that the countries of Europe are currently in, other than by millitary conquest. I'd also add to it the fact that they actually tied their economies together by common currency, but since the fiat money is a new concept, it cannot really be compared to old European economy based on gold standart.

Really? How much of our historical record are you taking into consideration with that statement? Are you including african tribes? American indians? Mayans and Incans? Moaris? New Guineans? The Chinese? Australian Aborigines? Eskimos? Russians? Romans? What about pre-agricultural human tribes? Mesapotamians? Over the tens of thousands of years that humans have left fossil records, can you seriously tell me that right now, the situation in Europe is the most peace that any culture has enjoyed since the dawn of humanity? For all of 50 years?

 

 

If you can clearly describe the group of adition of violence, state what the elements of the set on which you perform operation are, what is the identity element, and how we compare two elements of such set with "greater than", we can talk about it in mathematical terms. Untill then, you are just making a fool of yourself and probably not even realizing that.

OMG that would be too funny if it wasn't so lame. Seriously man, you really think that sh*t flies? Trying to out-technical me at maths in a chest-beating attempt to intimidate me?

 

Let me school you on something. I'm sure you have no idea what I'm about to say, because you're a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of guy. Maths, is a language. It's the language of quantifiable concepts. We use this language to communicate ideas and elaborate on them and develop them further, refining them, and eventually ending up with (hopefully) accurate ideas about things. Same with words. We use words to do the exact same thing. But you don't see linguists telling people that unless they can note the morphemes and phonemes and elaborate on the syntax rules and grammatical exceptions which allows words to form a complex idea, that the other person can't possibly communicate effectively and is thus making a fool of themselves. In fact, if such a linguist attempted to make such a claim (that unless you know every technicality of every minute detail of everything said, then you are a fool and can't communicate ideas), they would quickly discover that they are the ones making a fool of themselves. Just as you are right now. You're trying to tell me that until I can calculate the energy inputs and momentum and forces of swinging a hammer, until then, I can't knock up a shelf on the wall.

 

Sorry K^2, but again, it is you who is making a complete git of himself. Next time, don't try to get stupid about things to flex your mathematical muscle in some lame insecure attempt to intimidate me out of the argument. Just take it like a man and deal with the argument as presented.

 

 

Yes, adding to violence results in more violence, but not responding to violence allows violence to grow as well. You have to account for that. When somebody starts a riot, we cannot sit and say that it is Ok, because they were offended by some cartoons, and if we are to respond to it, it will only add to the violence. In the worst case scenario, when a chain reaction of violence causing more violence happens and it leads to a major war, people who come out of this war understand better the value of peace, and they will be less likely to start a riot over cartoons.

Now you're trying to create a false dilemma. Either we respond to violence with a greater show of violence, or we don't respond and it gets worse. But no-one has argued that we shouldn't respond, only that we shouldn't excacerbate the situation by contributing to the effect. We should instead, deal with the cause.

 

f*cking DUH!

 

To not respond at all is just being a pussy. To respond with violence will only make things worse. A superior option would be to respond with reason and compromise and understanding. That's why we have diplomats (though they are generally pretty sh*t). One could easily argue that the primary reason we've not seen any European wars since WWII has almost nothing to do with fear of destruction, and instead has everything to do with learning better negotiating techniques and gaining an increased understanding of the human condition. Indeed, there have been many instances of contention and tension among European nations since the war, but they have been diffused through reason and working together towards mutual benefit.

 

 

Yes, the use of Nuclear weapons still saved a lot of lives that would have been lost in naval assault on Japan, but it has not turned the tide of that war.

Um, the use of nuclear weapons is STILL causing deaths and unecessary suffering today, right now, this very moment... and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future (there's another one of those inductive arguments). Not to mention that a naval assault on Japan would have at least given the Japanese a chance to defend themselves and fight back with honour. But this is getting off-topic.

 

 

Lets look at WWI. Both sides has brought in weapons that have not existed before. Most notably, the machine guns and tanks. It has not secured the victory for either side. In fact, the more powerful the weaopns got, the less progres there was. Eventually, the battlefield became the place of death for many soldiers without allowing either side to gain anything. The more complex get the weapons, the more destructive and pointles is the war. In the age of swords and arrows, capturing a castle could have secured your control over an area allowing you to get rich of the area's resources. Now, there is no such wall that can protect you, any place in the world can become a part of the battlefield in less than a day, and defending any particular location is impossible, because if the enemy really wants you out of it, they'll just bomb the crap out of it.

 

Yes, there are still places in the world were people are armed with nothing better than machine guns, and war can actually be used to capture and defend important areas. Which is the whole reason why US currently maintains the troops in Iraq. Do you really think that anything similar can be possible if, say, United States and Europe enter into a war against each other? No. Never. Both sides are too technologically advanced to be tied in such a conflict. If such a war breaks out, it will be over in less than a week, with most of US and Europe laying in ruins, even if neither side uses nuclear weapons.

Increasing technology does not give us the situation you are describing, equal technology gives us the situation you are describing. What you're basically saying is that if two people are both equally strong, there is less reason to fight, but where one has a clear advantage, there is more reason for them to pick on the smaller guy. It's got nothing to do with retaliation, it's got everything to do with weighing risks and gains. But we humans are an adaptive lot. When faced with a situation where we are clearly at a strength disadvantage, we most often turn to stealth and guile. "Guerilla" tactics. "Terrorist" tactics.

 

Is this really the best option? To end up in a situation where either both sides could annihilate each other, or where one side attacks from the shadows, until one side is dead? Is this really your "ideal" situation? Seriously. This is in fact, the precise result of people doing what you say: retaliating to offense with increasing violence. The result is never ever "beneficial". It can only result in a temporary truce until there is an optimum oppurtunity to strike.

 

If you poke a lion, and you get bitten, you are an idiot. Learn to not poke lions.

If you knowingly publish a deliberately offensive cartoon and incite violence from extremist fundamentalists, you are an idiot. Learn to not deliberately offend extremist fundamentalists. Indians hold cows sacred. Would you parade a cow through their streets while spitting and urinating on it before slaughtering it? Christians hold christ sacred. Would you dress up like Jesus and walk into one of their churches and begin masturbating on the priest? If you don't like being burnt, why start the fire in the first place? You can't expect to be able to run around doing whatever you want to anyone you want and expect them to not retaliate in some form, any more than you can expect to run through a field of dry grass with a burning torch and expect the grass not to catch fire.

 

People need to stop being idiots. Tolerance isn't about agreeing with people, or allowing them to do whatever they want, it's about tolerating their right to be different, and their rights to not be offended and attacked. You don't have to like them, or agree with them, you just have to let them be and go about your business. Stop trying to impose your sh*t on everyone else, and stop attacking people for their differences. Tolerance has nothing to do with eveyone being lovey dovey carebears to each other, but is the only way for a bunch of different people to live together in peace and harmony while maintaining the integrity of every individual and the society as a whole.

Edited February 26, 2006 by Mortukai