We have plenty of motivation, and we've had that for way longer than since five days ago. To think that that's the show stopper here seems a bit naïve. Whether a method will work doesn't really depend on how angry we are or how well justified the anger is. To me it seems the more justified a solution is, the more likely it is that it will go overboard or otherwise send the wrong signals, making the situation worse in some sense. If a solution is good, it should be just as good even without preceding killings. And it's not really an either-we-try-or-we-don't issue, attempting violent blanket solutions is likely to make anti-american groups and thoughts more persuasive (just like these shootings seem to encourage violent response rather than submission or whatever we'd be hoping to achieve by applying guns).
Before I address any if that specifically, I think we should determine that we mean something at least similar when we use the terms extremist or extremism. My understanding is that these describe any ideology or philosophy that isn't just off center or on the fringes of the mainstream. What we should be describing with those is such an extreme deviation from the mainstream that they become a danger to themselves or those around them. If you don't agree with this, tell me what your understanding of these terms is and we'll go from there. Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
So the really dedicated fans of a TV show are extremists, in your view? Edited in: the only difference between a radical and an extremist is that the radical desires change while the extremist isn't focused on change. Do I have that correct?
No they're devoted. That's a different word than extremist. All radicals are extremists, but not all extremists are radicals.
I agree with most of what you point out to some extent, but I tend to think pure chaos is a logical alternative too. Rather than frame all of the events going on as being part of one big strategy think of them as random examples of the failures in human nature. On the other hand... I tend to be extremely suspicious of the people that create frameworks out of the apparent chaos. Sometimes its just another example of the human need for coherent narrative (another random human failure), but it often seems to be these frameworks are constructed in way to create justification of future,... well failures. For the most part we have a lot of fallible humans who are either morally or amorally ambitious. Both the well intentioned and the mercenary have ideas they implement that just don't work. Being human, they are extremely likely to ignore their own failure. So the mistake goes lumbering along like the proverbial frankenstein monster. As with anything there are always going to be some people or groups of people that benefit from these mistakes, and systems get built that are dependent on these mistakes staying active. Naturally the humans who benefit do not see themselves as villains, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep these systems active to preserve their way of life. Now, what we can't forget is that many ideas do work very well. I'd credit both the moral and mercenary here too. When we look at the world today without the distortion of panic fed frameworks its not too hard to see. The danger, (being fallible humans), is slotting all the success under one solitary banner, or crediting only one ideology with all the success. When we do this we can't help but see all the positive successes that fall outside of this ideology as enemies to the 'right way'. Chaos is a factor in positive change too. So an idea that works well in one place may be a failure in another, no single idea works everywhere. So yes, I agree with most of what you're saying. The only thing we may slightly differ on is our judgement of the players.
Wishful thinking to get anybody from the ideological left to lock arms to defeat an enemy they do not hate or fear until it directly effects them. Christians do not harm atheists directly, therefore it is the easy and natural and constant hatred that can pour unopposed from atheists at Christians. Muslims fight back violently and treacherously. They will not link arms with you...unless you are in a room with a crazed gun man, and happen to have a gun on your person. Then, it will be all about solidarity with you and the shared enemy. Not all atheists of course. I am a conservative and an atheist so I would clearly lock arms against the shared enemy.
Devotion is an extreme view isn't it? What I'm getting at is this: why use inflated and inflammatory language where it's not needed? What distinction are you making between someone who is merely devoted and the negative connotation associated with being an extremist? Where are you drawing that line? Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
Fair enough. I didn't mean the strawman you posted, it wasn't my words, I meant what I said. No those constitute as objects that are weapons. Get a dictionary, you constantly ask me what simple words mean.
Devout and extreme are not synonyms. The line of distinction is clear. Why are you trying to blur the line? - - - Updated - - - The hell you can't.
I asked what distinction you make between the two and your answer is that they're not synonyms. I wouldn't have asked for a distinction if I thought they were, correct? I'll just have to settle in you not having any distinction between them then, at least not one you're willing or able to describe. Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk
I didn't use them interchangeably I did explain the distinction. You attempted to catch me in a straw man fallacy. And I pointed out that that was devotion. Go back and read your nonsense and you'll see.
Let's have a recap of all our back and forth and see about the nonsense. It's there but I think you're mistaken on the source of it. post #37 You make the claim that not all extremists are a threat, and suggest that all groups have extremists. #41 I respond that there's no such thing as an atheist extremist. #45 You say in less than friendly speech that all atheists aren't the same, so there's the suggestion that anyone who isn't regular must be an extremist. #52 I sidelined the discussion at this point because your use of the term extremist was troubling. I shared my understanding of the term and asked for yours. #54 An extremist is merely someone with an extreme point of view to you. Note here, that this is not how anyone else uses the term, partly because nailing down what an 'extreme viewpoint' is, is too vague to get any solid results. The opinion of the listener and their hyperbole and how they spin the narrative can turn something that isn't extreme into something extreme. You've oversimplified the term. After that, you tell me my version is a 'radical'. #55 For some clarification, I ask if being a fan of a tv show is an extreme point of view. I also asked where you draw the line between radicals and extremists. #56 Avoiding actually answering my question, you point out that they are instead devoted, and this is a different word than extremist. Note here that you gave no explanation of how they're different. Then you followed with the baseless 'all radicals are extremists but not all extremists are radicals', with no explanation of why or even why you felt the need to add it. #60 I ask if devotion itself is an extreme view and for your distinction between being devoted and being an extremist #63 You say that devotion and extremism aren't synonyms. Note here that this isn't an explanation of the difference between them. #64 After the considerable dodge, I say I've settled on you not having an actual distinction you're willing or able to share. And that still sounds about right. #65 You say you don't use them interchangeably. How this explains the difference in when you use each one is beyond me. You basically avoided stating what the difference was by rephrasing that they're not synonyms in a different manner, which wouldn't have been bad, but then you claimed you explained the distinction, which you still haven't. Then you claimed I tried to strawman you, which is BS. Looking at the full recap... There's plenty of nonsense there, but it's all from you. You toss labels all over the place, you're rude when you have no reason to be, and you make baseless accusations. All I did was try to sort out the language you're abusing. But maybe we can salvage something here. Something productive. Take any 'regular people', be they atheists or Star Wars fans or Republicans or whatever, and give some sort of example of members of that group that are extremists, radicals, and devotees so they can be compared to show in what ways they're different or alike. Maybe some nuance or subtlety if you can swing it. Or you can sit there pretending to be superior, because if you can't do that simple exercise, you've been full of crap the entire time we've been having this exchange and your superiority is just make believe. Eagerly awaiting your reply.
I use common definitions. The ones that follow. ex·trem·ism ikˈstrēˌmizəm/ noun the holding of extreme political or religious views; fanaticism. de·vout dəˈvout/ adjective having or showing deep religious feeling or commitment. rad·i·cal ˈradək(əl/ adjective 1. (especially of change or action) relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough. I find it strange I have to explain this to you, but alas, you cried on and on about it, so here we go. A devout baseball player is one that shows a deep feeling or commitment to the game An extreme baseball player is one that holds extreme fanatical views. A radical baseball player is one that wants to fundamentally change the natural course of the game. Do I need to define what a base ball player is, or a game as well? This had become tedious.
No one would care IF Obama didn't seem to be catering to Islamist terrorists by not even naming them. Go lecture Obama about the Separation Clause...Apparently he is ignorant of it.
Sure, nuke the entire world. Only a few sit in underground bunkers and come out some 50 yrs later. God tried to change ideology, sin, wiped out the entire world. Still have sin. Gay marriage ideology, won with guns?
Looks like most have agreed. But no one seems to be agreeing on a solution. You don't even think drone strikes against radical islamic terrorists is doing something. Just whack a mole.
Before I begin, let me note that I didn't expect anything but sneering and condescension, and those are present, but amongst that you attempted a response, so I will rescind my 'full of crap' comment and offer a sincere apology. At no time did I ask for a copy/paste of what the folks at dictionary.com say those words mean. I questioned how you meant them and the distinctions you made between them. You picked the wrong definition for a radical as well. That describes the adjective, not a person. Your definition is a bit lacking for extremism. It could describe anybody you disagree with strongly enough. And in turn, someone could describe you with it should they disagree with you strong enough. Let me show you what that might look like in the real world. Two men are arguing, about women. The first man is more of a secularist and is arguing that women should be treated as equals. The other man is religious and is arguing that women should be submissive to their husbands, if not all men. At this point, they could both claim the other is an extremist. Should there be an audience, they might hear the word extremist, and understand it as terrorist. Both men could have meant terrorist had they called the other an extremist. Another question I posed earlier and got no response to was why use such inflated and inflammatory language to describe someone who isn't a threat? That example might be silly or unreasonable, but in no way is it acceptable for such use of language. Hyperbole is dangerous in many instances and should be avoided, and I doubt you are a stranger to the difference between proper usage and hyperbole; your comment about how I allegedly 'cried' was an example of the latter. Aside from that, you made a little bit of a fuss over these terms not being interchageable; you will not get away with a claim of ignorance to such elements of speech. You see, if we look to another source for meaning to this term 'extremist', like dictionary.com, we get this(don't take my word, go look: here.: That definition, as opposed to your weak and watered down one, is precisely why the term 'extremist' is conflated with 'terrorist' by so many and so often. Extremists by this definition do all pose a threat with the full meaning, not for thinking, but for the potential actions they might take or advocate or get others to participate in. Which is what I proposed to you earlier, and you corrected me saying this was a radical. Since you didn't find the proper definition earlier, let's turn to dictionary.com again. When you put those side by side, not only is it not true that all radicals are extremists, but the radical is far less less dangerous than an extremist. The radical is a thinker and an advocate, occasionally a threat. The extremist is expected to act in a bad way. The radical is not always a threat but the extremist is. Please rethink your positions on these terms. For the record, when a person asks you to clarify your position, and you claim you already did when you didn't, so they ask for the clarification again, that's not them crying, that's you dodging. Thank you for finally tending to it. Gotta give credit where it's due. Even with the wrong definition of radical, you still provided a good example of what they might resemble. We're good with the devout one as well, though I'll issue you another challenge with these two specific terms. Where is the dividing line between devout and radical, according to you and your usage of them, not according to flat or incomplete definitions? Can someone who is devout, not also be radical? Now, your example of an extremist baseball player, is no good at all. You see how the thoughts and needs of the devotee and the radical are connected to the game of baseball? Those make sense. Your extremist on the other hand, is just an extremist, and just by say-so. It has no connection to the game of baseball. You don't have an extremist baseball player in this case; you have an extremist who happens to play baseball. There's a subtle difference, and yet it's still a substantial one. This is why I said before, and still stand by, that there is no such thing as an atheist extremist. You can have an extremist who happens to be an atheist, but there is no extreme view of atheism to be held that would be anything other than a disagreement by another party, or a baseless insult perhaps. You need to stop being a boorish and condescending prig, and have the good grace to recognize when someone is trying to communicate with you and had the good grace themselves to listen to you in the first place. You don't have to keep stooping to this level. You're not unintelligent; please act like it.
Doubtful. As you (*)(*)(*)(*) people off, more tend to go towards that ideology. Especially if they think one is committing genocide wrongly.
I'm not reading all this (*)(*)(*)(*). If you'd like to discuss the topic we can. I don't really care to be tangled in the minutia any more. I'll start. I think it's foolish not to see the connection between extremist Islam and terrorism.
