SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
I came across this piece on Scott Adam's blog and found it quite interesting. Thought others here might find it interesting too:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/133406477506/global-gender-war#_=_
So if you are wondering how men become cold-blooded killers, it isn't religion that is doing it. If you put me in that situation, I can say with confidence I would sign up for suicide bomb duty. And I'm not even a believer. Men like hugging better than they like killing. But if you take away my access to hugging, I will probably start killing, just to feel something. I'm designed that way. I'm a normal boy. And I make no apology for it.
Now consider the controversy over the Syrian immigrants. The photos show mostly men of fighting age. No one cares about adult men, so a 1% chance of a hidden terrorist in the group – who might someday kill women and children – is unacceptable. I have twice blogged on the idea of siphoning out the women and small kids from the Caliphate and leaving millions of innocent adult men to suffer and die. I don't recall anyone complaining about leaving millions of innocent adult males to horrible suffering. In this country, any solution to a problem that involves killing millions of adult men is automatically on the table.
If you kill infidels, you will be rewarded with virgins in heaven. But if you kill your own leaders today – the ones holding the leash on your balls – you can have access to women tomorrow. And tomorrow is sooner.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:39AM
He seems to be a rational person, I clicked some links and I didn't see any religious fanatic stuff there. But basing one's beliefs on religion means one isn't rational. Unless he's rationally come to that equality conviction and searched for some religious text afterward to stick it to.
That's the other way around of what I was trying to say. Religious fanatics to me are people who are "philosophically challenged" and blindly base their behavior on some ancient book. People who need an ancient book to test their thoughts against are just "philosophically hindered". People who don't need religion at all are philosophically liberated.
I hope that came out right, English is not my first language.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:48AM
It came out quite well, I think - your English is probably better than most USians.
Religious fanatic is probably a term that means something slightly different to everybody. I'd call myself a fanatic, but not many would willingly accept that term. As to whether I'm rational or not, you be the judge. I'm probably not rational all the time, regardless. :)
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @07:00AM
your English is probably better than most USians
USians
Yours sucks though.
Since we are making up new terms for other people do I get to call you an Eurian? (Say it out loud for best effect.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 21 2015, @02:27PM
Yours sucks though.
Why? Did you not understand what he meant? I can make up any term I want; that's the nature of language. Those who don't realize that language evolves are left in the dust. I only consider it a problem when someone communicates in a way that is not understandable, which defeats the purpose.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @04:48AM
"People who need an ancient book to test their thoughts against are just "philosophically hindered"."
So, uhhh, where do philosophers get their ideas?
Plato
Aristotle
Descartes
Marx
Kant
Epicurus
Neitsche
Kierkegaard
Aquinas
Locke
Socrates
Augustine of Hippo
Hume
Heraclitus
Foulcaut
Russel
Spinoza
I guess the presumption is that mankind has developed philosophy just in the past 100 years or so, in the spare time between creating airplanes and automobiles and the internet.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:22AM
You put Spinoza after Russell, and misspelled Lord Russell? It is not the books, Runaway, it is being about to read them, understand them, engage the arguments, and form your own philosophical position. Argumentum ad Auctoritas not allowed. Aristotle was wrong about a few things, after all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 21 2015, @06:53AM
We're all wrong about a few things, after all. Understanding that you are not always right, and that there are legitimate, alternative points of view is what prevents many of us from just gunning down the idiots who argue against us.
I'm reminded of something I read somewhere - something like, "You're allowed to be stupid, but please, stop abusing the privilege." Note - I don't mean that to be taken personally.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Saturday November 21 2015, @10:30AM
I knew I wasn't fully clear but couldn't find better wording yesterday. Try this instead: "people who need an ancient book to categorize their thoughts are philosophically hindered". They have free thoughts but only allow those thoughts that they can interpret the book to match with. The list of people you mentioned allowed themselves to think outside the box and develop new ideas, and are still remembered for that. I got the realization that all people are basically equal at a young age, for me personally that was a philosophical breakthrough. Ditching religion was the next. But sadly not everyone in this world allows themselves this freedom of thought.