This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Clear and Understood

Jump to new
So, while each culture, and sub culture, does have cognitive biases, do you think there are any universal principles that humans would agree are essential to assist in establishing and maintaining a global human society that allows us to be individuals yet cooperate and act in a way that is benificial to the greater good and happiness?

I was thinking about Islam and the West today, and cognitive biases, and why Muslims in the Middle East still want to follow the Koran, and even Shariah, and I had a thought that our disgust in their cultural approval of inequality and the like must be the same as their utter disgust for the West's hedonism and materialism, and why we ultimately have a war on terror. Maybe

(sorry for the long sentances)
 
Being an idealist, I'm sure there must be a formula that would achieve that goal; in fact I believe a great number of people of all bents sincerely try to live their lives with this ideal... including Muslims.

But also being a pragmatist, the realization is that this could never be so. There will always be those who are greedy, megalomaniacal, misogynistic, or just downright misanthropic. These folks manage to turn any Shangri-Lah into a dysfunctional sh*thole. It happens on every level of society, from a family, to the local bowls club, to government.

If people would only follow the "golden rule" or its various facsimiles, universally, it wouldn't matter what culture they lived in.

The fraudulent "war on terror", or indeed genuine terrorism, (which it could be argued the war on terror actually is) was never about cultures or religions. It is about money, power and oil. Religion and culture is only the catalyst the elite use to inflame the passions of the plebs, so they can get soldiers.
 
kennas said:
I thought we were generally discussing Islam, or more specifically fundamentalist Islam?
Click to expand...
surprised you disagree with my proposed alternatie thread titles there kennas - but I leave it to others to decide if it needs changing, and/or to what.

at the moment, the topic of this thread is not quite "clear nor understood" imo
a) Rushdi gets knighthood
b) (some) reasonable Moslems take (some) offense
c) others (extreme?) suggest Bin Laden be given the equivalent Islam knighthood
d) what should be our reaction to it

(If 've defined the topic of the thread incorrectly, then pls set me straight - just that it's never been clear to me.)

Almost 3 or 4 parts of that article to discuss.

Do we believe the press? yes for a and b no doubt - but how serious is c?
If it's a media beatup, are we going to help by getting a possie rounded up to ride north at high noon etc

sure, we end up discussing fundamentalist Islam I guess
just that the thread title is ambiguous.
just speaking generally here.

Meanwhile I've also enjoyed your blokes comments - "Bias Blind Spots" lol - even defined on Wikipedia
 


20/20,

Your suggestions were sufficient I believe.

For what it is worth I disagree with the knighthood. I won't discuss why though.

Cheers..
 

quoted for truth
 

Ahh, at least somebody on this thread knows what they are talking about
Good stuff Wayne, i agree wholly.

Snake, are you listening?

2020 - I agree with Snake and disagree with Rushdie knighthood, as for your point #c, i feel i could put up a reasonable case, but for the sake of having respect for others, lets not go there
 
"war on terror" in Afghanistan I would say is/was a legitimate reaction to Twin Towers. (wont go back any further than that for this discussion - believe last time we ended up talking about Lawrence of Arabia, lol )

we didnt get the bad guy because of ... (if you watched that TV interview of the US Army officer whose men had him in their sights, you'd have to conclude) a fair share of incompetence. Wikipedia also made reference to it as "the biggest mistake the US lead army made".

both of those wars have been sold to thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of Aus, (who punch way above their weight incidentally) - a few (in Iraq) are starting to doubt their case no doubt.

now they have to go back into Afghanistan to finish what they started - against a new and envigorated enemy, and killing a lot of civilians in the process etc - recipe for disaster if we're not careful

and sure we went into Iraq for all the wrong reasons - nothing to do with AQ that's for sure, but Hussein "talked back" a lot and sure he had oil. Hard to know which was the cake, and which was the icing on it. But I agree nothing to do with AQ.

As for the Rushdi knighthood, just sounds bizarre to me that the Poms even went there. (I agree with Snake lol) - only a bludy knighthood after all -
and balance that against the extra security he'll now need as a direct result etc.

let's not forget the importance of "eternal vigilance" is now very real indeed. But since the start of Iraq war, we have mainly ourselves to blame.

let's not forget the second stage of the 'terrorism' (a 'demonstation' by loonies) just after 9/11, when Anthrax powder suddenly started showing up in mailed packages - and crippled normal functioning of society.

but I'm getting probably getting off the thread. sufice to say -

If wayneL/ dissaray's theory that the war on terror is really just the west acting out of selfishness ... ( and i agree to some extent, in Iraq at least) then...

what are we still doing in Iraq,? (US Democrats even folding after getting a mandate etc), and
why are a large percentage if not the majority of Aus voters still hoodwinked?
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
20/20, Wayne, Nizar et al.

Clear and understood - no pun intended.

A disturbing argument those guys had.
Click to expand...
It certainly did nothing to raise my opinion of Falwell from out of the gutter.

Sheesh! I wonder what Jesus (whichever version of deity/human/myth ascribed to) would have thought of that? I mean whether or not you agree with him, it's trash talk from a Christian clergyman.
 
Interview With Former Malaysian PM Mahathis Mohammad: Part 1
Part 2
AQ spring offensive etc
just posting this as "food for thought and/or comment".
Amazing these days that you can so easily research how the other side of the conflict is thinking ( not that Mahathis is necessarily defending AQ, but he sure as hell has a low opinion on US and UK - and , although not mentioned, presumably also Aus. )
 
2020hindsight said:
AQ spring offensive etc
just posting this as "food for thought and/or comment".
Click to expand...
Strangely enough when I found that last youtube and posted it last weekend - prior to my knowing the identity of the London & Glasgow bombers, at the time, I couldn't help noticing the medical student learning to be a suicide bomber

struck me as being a far cry from the normal image of them.

And now I find that London and Glasgow used doctors - and now (even) Gold Coast doctors!! involved.
 

Attachments

  • AQ recruits1.jpg
    13.5 KB · Views: 85
  • AQ recruits2.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 85
  • AQ recruits3.jpg
    13.4 KB · Views: 87
  • AQ recruits4.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 85
If this happens in Britain, what is going on in Iran, and other traditional (backward) Muslim societies where it's condoned? This is just plain wrong in the modern world, but was probably justifiable in the year 500 in Saudi, to maintain that societies cohesion. Now? Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a number of Muslims striving for Sharia, and honor killings are part of the game.

 
She was raped by her dad and brother, or they watched, before being killed by the sounds.

 
Kathmandu said:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Dave
Click to expand...

that site is misrepresentative leftist rubbish.

from the site - "The count includes civilian deaths caused by coalition military action and by military or paramilitary responses to the coalition presence (e.g. insurgent and terrorist attacks). It also includes excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion."

these idiots are holding the west responsible for murders committed by muslim jihadis and bandits (which comprise the bulk of the bodycount). once again its the leftist victim mentality bleeding their hearts all over the floor and blaming the evil white man for everything instead of, oh i don't know, violent criminals maybe? psychotic jihadis? a culture of guns, violence and aggression? no no, its all the fault of the evil west.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...