NationStates

The Restored Danelaw wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
You'd probably think it unfair if you were exiled for the crimes of people who share a trait with you though, right?

Collective guilt is bullshit.

If it was a trait I wasn't able to change, yeah probably.

The Restored Danelaw wrote:If it was a trait I wasn't able to change, yeah probably.

Aeritai wrote:Well if there is one thing I learned from this thread, is that people are willing to punish innocents for the action of one.

History is repeating itself once again.

The Restored Danelaw wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
You'd probably think it unfair if you were exiled for the crimes of people who share a trait with you though, right?

Collective guilt is bullshit.

If it was a trait I wasn't able to change, yeah probably.

Senkaku wrote:

The Restored Danelaw wrote:If it was a trait I wasn't able to change, yeah probably.

"renounce your deeply held religious beliefs or be punished for them"

what could go wrong here

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Senkaku wrote:"renounce your deeply held religious beliefs or be punished for them"

what could go wrong here

Historically speaking not a lot tbh. Several religions, including Christianity and Islam, partially spread via that very method.

The Liberated Territories wrote:The correct response, of course, is a giant Mohammad float outside of Paris.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Senkaku wrote:"renounce your deeply held religious beliefs or be punished for them"

what could go wrong here

Historically speaking not a lot tbh. Several religions, including Christianity and Islam, partially spread via that very method.

Albrenia wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Historically speaking not a lot tbh. Several religions, including Christianity and Islam, partially spread via that very method.

I think we're working under the assumption here that killing or exiling large populations for the crime of being similar to someone else and refusing to change is a bad thing. Historically, people didn't have much problem doing it to other people but it was still an atrocity.

Albrenia wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Historically speaking not a lot tbh. Several religions, including Christianity and Islam, partially spread via that very method.

I think we're working under the assumption here that killing or exiling large populations for the crime of being similar to someone else and refusing to change is a bad thing. Historically, people didn't have much problem doing it to other people but it was still an atrocity.

Senkaku wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
I think we're working under the assumption here that killing or exiling large populations for the crime of being similar to someone else and refusing to change is a bad thing. Historically, people didn't have much problem doing it to other people but it was still an atrocity.

never assume that you are working from a common normative ground when speaking with a fascist lol

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Albrenia wrote:
I think we're working under the assumption here that killing or exiling large populations for the crime of being similar to someone else and refusing to change is a bad thing. Historically, people didn't have much problem doing it to other people but it was still an atrocity.

Certainly I would say it's morally wrong, but given the already existing resentment and alienation the Muslim population feels for France it probably wouldn't result in anything too massive assuming the hypothetical came true. Which it won't of course because this is a liberal western democracy we're speaking of.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Senkaku wrote:never assume that you are working from a common normative ground when speaking with a fascist lol

>tfw literally identify with non-Marxian socialism
>fascist

This is why people say that word means nothing anymore lol

Albrenia wrote:

The Restored Danelaw wrote:If it was a trait I wasn't able to change, yeah probably.

So you think it fair to exile me from Australia where I live, for the crimes of other Atheists? Or you from your home for the crimes of whatever faith or creed you follow?

Senkaku wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
>tfw literally identify with non-Marxian socialism
>fascist

This is why people say that word means nothing anymore lol

you must remember that I believe almost nothing you say any more

Senkaku wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Certainly I would say it's morally wrong, but given the already existing resentment and alienation the Muslim population feels for France it probably wouldn't result in anything too massive assuming the hypothetical came true. Which it won't of course because this is a liberal western democracy we're speaking of.

you're literally saying "what could go wrong" about expelling millions of people from their home, in a population where there's already evidence that radical networks have been able to find recruits in no small part thanks to existing social tension and perception of threat? while making blanket statements about what "the Muslim population feels for France"?

as for "things can't go wrong in a liberal western democracy".... I mean do I really have to say anything

Senkaku wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
>tfw literally identify with non-Marxian socialism
>fascist

This is why people say that word means nothing anymore lol

you must remember that I believe almost nothing you say any more

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Senkaku wrote:you're literally saying "what could go wrong" about expelling millions of people from their home, in a population where there's already evidence that radical networks have been able to find recruits in no small part thanks to existing social tension and perception of threat? while making blanket statements about what "the Muslim population feels for France"?

as for "things can't go wrong in a liberal western democracy".... I mean do I really have to say anything

Yeah it's no secret that the Muslim population in France fucking hates the nation and everything it stands for. It's arguably the single greatest example of why laid back assimilation doesn't work and needs to be active government policy that is rigorously enforced. France just allowed a bunch of self segregating and self radicalizing ghettos to form and this sort of stuff will keep happening for a long while because of it.

It also probably doesn't help a lot of those people came from nations that France played an active part in destroying.

Senkaku wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Certainly I would say it's morally wrong, but given the already existing resentment and alienation the Muslim population feels for France it probably wouldn't result in anything too massive assuming the hypothetical came true. Which it won't of course because this is a liberal western democracy we're speaking of.

you're literally saying "what could go wrong" about expelling millions of people from their home, in a population where there's already evidence that radical networks have been able to find recruits in no small part thanks to existing social tension and perception of threat? while making blanket statements about what "the Muslim population feels for France"?

as for "things can't go wrong in a liberal western democracy".... I mean do I really have to say anything

Sarderia wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:Riight? This is paralel to years ago when I'm still in middle school. When the religion teacher was going to teach about why Islam's account of Jesus is right while the Christians' is wrong, she kindly asked the Christians in the room to leave, which they did, and that's that. It was her duty to teach us the materials, yet disharmony is also taken care of.

For the issue to rotate among thr Islamists and eventually triggered the terrorist to act is astounding.

Overall, this attack is just the symptom of a larger problem. Say 2% of the Muslim population in France is radical (which is very generous, considering the recent survey here in Indonesia where 10-15% of the population wants the secular government to be overthrown and replaced by a caliphate, even though we're a secular country whose secularism was enforced by a military dictatorship for 30 years through various anti-Islamist policies). That's still 100.000 out of 5 million. Serious efforts must be made to neutralize this problem.

I think that they are also implementing serious efforts to neutralize these problems. The problem about radicalism - be it religious, or ideological like Communist/Socialist/Anarchist etc. is that they spread like wildfire. It only takes a few moment, perhaps a month or two or three to familiarize people with radical ideals, anything it is. Each government need to devote more resources in combatting these ideologies with ideologies. You can't kill of an idea - you're just creating martyrs for them. We need to fight fire with fire, arguments with arguments - once you prove them wrong it's a house of cards breaking down for the entire radical ideology.

The Restored Danelaw wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Yeah it's no secret that the Muslim population in France fucking hates the nation and everything it stands for. It's arguably the single greatest example of why laid back assimilation doesn't work and needs to be active government policy that is rigorously enforced. France just allowed a bunch of self segregating and self radicalizing ghettos to form and this sort of stuff will keep happening for a long while because of it.

It also probably doesn't help a lot of those people came from nations that France played an active part in destroying.

Aren't the bulk of them (barring the recent Syrians) Algerian Muslims? I mean can you blame them for hating France?

Aureumterra III wrote:Not much to add, was the teacher wrong in showing the pictures of Muhammad?

Costa Fierro wrote:

Aureumterra III wrote:Not much to add, was the teacher wrong in showing the pictures of Muhammad?

It was wrong to intentionally disrespect religious figures full stop. At this point it's no longer a matter of "free speech" but "how many Muslims can we piss off and then claim victimhood when they retaliate".

The Restored Danelaw wrote:

Costa Fierro wrote:
It was wrong to intentionally disrespect religious figures full stop. At this point it's no longer a matter of "free speech" but "how many Muslims can we piss off and then claim victimhood when they retaliate".

There is no claiming. If you do something legal and a Muslim decapitates you in public for it -no matter what- you're the victim. And no, it's not wrong to intentionally, or otherwise, disrespect religious figures.