French Magazine "Charlie Hebdo" offices attacked by gunmen

[NynJa]

France didn't fuck around this time.

I'd like to think with two of the suspects still out there, they kept all of their police force on high alert. Its quite possible that the 3rd person who turned themself in said theres more coming.

[vagus]

Killing a police officer def. added extr incentive to find the newspaper shootings.

Curious if these 2 groups have a connection. A kosher grocery store can't be a coincident.

[Brill Weave]

How does the "no true scotsman" escape hatch pertain to discussions of Muslim terrorists? u ok?

And you wonder how these threads end up going to shit. Little comments like that is generally where it starts.

[Priran]

And you wonder how these threads end up going to shit. Little comments like that is generally where it starts.

If you define "going to shit" as "going somewhere I don't like". I think going into this discussion dismissing the religious legitimacy of Muslim terrorists so you can pretend Islam doesn't have a radicalization problem is an easier and ultimately worthless discussion to have.

More to the point, I was addressing you treating that comment like a nonsensical derail/troll rather than salient and uncomfortable, if sarcastically put. Maybe it's just because I've spent 80% of the past week infracted because of it but it's getting on my nerves that everybody can participate in an argument like a functional rational being until somebody disagrees with them, and then they get all 10-minutes-to-Wapner and can't read between lines, understand any context, or offer any interpretation other than one in the baddest of faiths.

[archibaldcrane]

And when Priran is talking about bad faith interpretations, you know it's serious.

[Priran]

And when Priran is talking about bad faith interpretations, you know it's serious.

Hey, I'm willing to give anybody a fair shake. Like, I could attribute the fact that I made an essentially identical post to this and got banned for 2 days to malice, but I'm above rushing to judgment like that.

[Priran]

k

[Brill Weave]

If you define "going to shit" as "going somewhere I don't like". I think going into this discussion dismissing the religious legitimacy of Muslim terrorists so you can pretend Islam doesn't have a radicalization problem is an easier and ultimately worthless discussion to have.

More to the point, I was addressing you treating that comment like a nonsensical derail/troll rather than salient and uncomfortable, if sarcastically put. Maybe it's just because I've spent 80% of the past week infracted because of it but it's getting on my nerves that everybody can participate in an argument like a functional rational being until somebody disagrees with them, and then they get all 10-minutes-to-Wapner and can't read between lines, understand any context, or offer any interpretation other than one in the baddest of faiths.

Let's be clear since you and I don't really interact much. I don't give a fuck about any of what you just posted here. None of it. You and I both know threads have been derailed over comments far lesser than the one I chose to quote. Don't like it or have a problem with it, I think you're smart enough to know what my response is going to be.

[Priran]

Let's be clear since you and I don't really interact much. I don't give a fuck about any of what you just posted here. None of it. You and I both know threads have been derailed over comments far lesser than the one I chose to quote. Don't like it or have a problem with it, I think you're smart enough to know what my response is going to be.

Putting the brakes on a religion of peace ;-; kumbaya-circlejerk isn't "derailing".

[Brill Weave]

You really don't have the good sense to walk away do you.

[Tyrath]

You know I am not a fan of religion. I am on the side of people who think the ideology is the one to blame for many of the terrorist acts and other heinous things we see in the world. I am also the one who reported this post.

as in legitimate rape

It adds nothing to the conversation. If you have a problem, actually talk about it. Bring your points to the table and present your evidence and arguments. Don't post dumb shit like that. This is not the place for snide one liners.

[Priran]

You really don't have the good sense to walk away do you.

continued participation in bg forum politics threads is not high on the "important enough to get bullied out of speaking my mind" list. maybe you should reevaluate your own priorities, hotpockets-kun. it'd probably matter more if this forum didn't run a pogrom on every outspoken/entertaining poster from the early days.

[Gredival]

Putting the brakes on a religion of peace ;-; kumbaya-circlejerk isn't "derailing".

A user posted a completely valid sentiment that they felt sad for "legit" Muslims, which is reasonably interpreted as a (unfortunate but correct) prediction of retaliatory violence against non-radical peaceful Muslims.

A snide comment about "legitimate rape" has nothing at all to do about it. Even granting Todd Akin leave to clarify what he meant by "legitimate rape," he still put forth a medically discredited theory. Bringing it up in this context was nothing more than a crude ham-fisted attempt to reference something that the poster knew would be a "touchy issue" for people on the other side.

In other words, it was flame-baiting/trolling in the purest sense possible. They were, correctly, warned to stop. The reference to "legitimate rape" was stupid and is completely unnecessary for that discussion, and you aren't making yourself out to be some free speech martyr because you disagree with a user being warned for a useless comment.

Bane has already clarified that discussion about the problem of radical Islam is fair game. If you want to talk about the radicalization problem of Islam, or if you are audacious enough to say that all Islam is radical Islam, then put forth that viewpoint and defend it. No one is curtailing your ability to do that.

[Priran]

Saying you feel bad for "legit" muslims is an indirect statement that the terrorists were not "legit" in their islam and an attempt to invalidate their identity as muslims. It is a classic scotsman.

It's the same sentiment saying that some rapes, namely the ones that are difficult to address from Akin's hardline stance, are not "legit". Like how it is hard to defend Islam when people who are unambiguously muslim are committing unambiguously religiously-motivated murders. It is a 1:1 comparison.

[wipers]

Let's be clear since you and I don't really interact much. I don't give a fuck about any of what you just posted here. None of it. You and I both know threads have been derailed over comments far lesser than the one I chose to quote. Don't like it or have a problem with it, I think you're smart enough to know what my response is going to be.

Cared enough to reply.

God forbid you offend a Muslim might end up on the evening news.

[NynJa]

There was another hostage situation in south paris in a Jewelry store. Was that one covered? I only saw about the grocery store one here.

[Melena]

Saying you feel bad for "legit" muslims is an indirect statement that the terrorists were not "legit" in their islam and an attempt to invalidate their identity as muslims. It is a classic scotsman.

It's the same sentiment saying that some rapes, namely the ones that are difficult to address from your stance, are not "legit". It is a 1:1 comparison.

Well considering that non radical islams, including clerics have denounced what the extremists do as saying that they are not representing what islam truly is, that yes the legit islam comment is with merit.

[Priran]

Well considering that non radical islams, including clerics have denounced what the extremists do as saying that they are not representing what islam truly is, that yes the legit islam comment is with merit.

So what clerics do is reflective of true islam?

Bad news.

[wipers]

Take note all you would be cartoonists they are coming for you next.

It is officially time to panic.

[Blubbartron]

A user posted a completely valid sentiment that they felt sad for "legit" Muslims, which is reasonably interpreted as a (unfortunate but correct) prediction of retaliatory violence against non-radical peaceful Muslims.

A snide comment about "legitimate rape" has nothing at all to do about it. Even granting Todd Akin leave to clarify what he meant by "legitimate rape," he still put forth a medically discredited theory. Bringing it up in this context was nothing more than a crude ham-fisted attempt to reference something that the poster knew would be a "touchy issue" for people on the other side.

In other words, it was flame-baiting/trolling in the purest sense possible. They were, correctly, warned to stop. The reference to "legitimate rape" was stupid and is completely unnecessary for that discussion, and you aren't making yourself out to be some free speech martyr because you disagree with a user being warned for a useless comment.

Bane has already clarified that discussion about the problem of radical Islam is fair game. If you want to talk about the radicalization problem of Islam, or if you are audacious enough to say that all Islam is radical Islam, then put forth that viewpoint and defend it. No one is curtailing your ability to do that.

Wipers is a shitposter and I'd personally be quite happy if he simply stopped posting. But it's easy enough for me to just ignore his little posts, so whatever.

Regardless, for the thing you mentioned about "all Islam is radical Islam", I would direct you to Sam Harris' essay on moderate Muslims. There are plenty of completely decent Muslims, but it's important to realize that they're decent in spite of their religion and not because of it. The difference between Islam and most other religions is that you don't have to be super fundamentalist about it to get some seriously fucked up beliefs as a result. Even moderate Muslims are rioting over the flushing of a book, demanding blasphemy laws, and generally not being upset when the extremist element takes their special brand of "justice" into their own hands.