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 Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @10:22PM
It's just cause and effect.
It's not very useful to me here because I am talking about blame and personal responsibility.
but a system with the wrong incentives
The wrong incentives being... what? People being allowed to engage in consensual relationships with multiple partners? There's no way to solve that 'problem' unless you are a fan of oppression. The relationships themselves do no harm, so there's no justifiable cause to limit them. We just need to deal with thugs when they rear their ugly heads.
But if you're merely talking about what we can expect when such relationships occur, then that is less of an issue. Still, this sort of thing is typically used to try to justify unjust laws.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday November 22 2015, @11:22PM
It's not very useful to me here because I am talking about blame and personal responsibility.
And I am speaking of cause and effect. It bugs me when people can dismiss interminable problems that affect innocent people, such as terrorist attacks or collateral damage or institutional law breaking (such as unconstitutional asset forfeiture) from the US War on Drugs on the basis that it is a personal responsibility thing for which some people remain forever irresponsible and we don't need to care, no matter how much harm is done.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 22 2015, @11:57PM
institutional law breaking (such as unconstitutional asset forfeiture) from the US War on Drugs
In those cases, government thugs are at fault for enforcing and creating those laws and policies. The individual is at fault for not following those unjust laws, but I think they are good for not doing so. The government thugs are doing the real harm. Everyone is at fault for their own actions, but not everyone's actions are harmful.