Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

mailman.videolan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 737 posts

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#281

Post by Natanael_L »

venomsnake wrote: post #240
jacquesm wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I support freedom of speech - absolute and unrestricted. I don't support freedom of religion That, at first reading does not appear to be internally consistent. At some level freedom of religion is freedom of speech. Unless you want to lobotomize people who are religious so they no longer speak their mind on the subject but you can't have the one without the other.

Religion is more than just beliefs and speech. It is also religious organizations, religious rituals and so on. The first part I support - no one should be prevented (or punished) for saying - I believe in X. On the other hand there should be total override of secular laws towards the commandments - if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and so…

> if your country orders you (or forbids you from doing) something that contradicts with your beliefs - you do it, and sort it out with your deity later.

Independently of religion, this is horrible policy. Not every country has rational sane laws, not every goverment wants their populace to be free. If you'd be given the option in Hitler's Germany to join the army or die, would you comply or try to fight?

The rational thing is to figure out if your beliefs are reasonable, then adjust them if necessary, and then to act according to them, law or not. The source of your beliefs aren't half as important as what you do to figure out if they are sane and have a positive impact or not.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#282

Post by easytiger »

iamthepieman wrote: post #37

I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer. One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions an…

It is good you have self awareness about your religion. Do you admit both views are complete fallacy?

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#283

Post by steveklabnik »

cygx wrote: post #64
iamthepieman wrote: post #37

I work with a Muslim and I'm a Christian. Since we are both very conservative, I actually have more in common with him than with my secular coworkers and friends. Unfortunately we both work remotely and live several hundred miles from each other. I think we could be good friends if we lived closer. One thing I have learned talking with my Muslim coworker is that, just like in Christianity, there are many divisions an…

Of course it's not "all Muslisms". But those who claim "it's only the terrorists" or "it's all politics" do not grasp the scope of the problem, ie that globally speaking, a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. If you naively extrapolate from the 2013 Pew Poll The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society (which in principle represents nations with a tot…

  > a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that
  > are incompatible with an open society.
Yet, a significant number of them also do. You can't generalize over a billion people like this.

For example, there are many Muslim-majority states that have had multiple women as heads of state. Sounds pretty progressive when you put it that way...

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#284

Post by ctdonath »

jjoe wrote: post #89
vog wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 40% of these think you should be killed for leaving Islam. How do these numbers compare to other religions? For example, there is an unconfortable number of Christians who do have a fundamentalist mindset, too (although I didn't find any exact numbers). Probably similar issue for other religions and possibly also among non-religious people.

What would be fair comparison is a country or region with a large Christian population that's at war or serious unrest. One country that comes to mind is Rwanda in 1994.

Poor example. Christianity had nothing to do with that civil war. For reasons incomprehensible to most (as is also currently the case with Shiite vs Sunni), the Hutus and Tutsis had a deep cultural mutual hatred, and eventually acted on it to the slaughter of one side. There was nothing about the motivations related to a [mis-]representation of Christianity.

Near as most can tell, Islam _is_ a central factor in recent events. A lot of people are looking for a reason to conclude it isn't; if you can explain (either way) please do.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#285

Post by ptaipale »

claudius wrote: post #226
gotchange wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they would like to change society to suit their ends. What would be those means employed by non-Muslim radicals to effect social change? I'm inclined to say that urban warfare and terrorizing an entire population with open aggression tactics are not among them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oktoberfest_terror_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army All these are fairly recent examples of non-Muslim radicals attempting to effect social change by the same means Muslim radicals use to try and effect s…

You really have to go back in time to find these examples. Their dates of terror operation are 1970's, 1980, 1980's, 1995 and for one which doesn't very well compare, 2010. And then they were largely hounded down and imprisoned (or executed, for McVeigh). Islamist terrorism is a newer and also much bigger trend (even in the West, although the vast majority of people killed are in Muslim countries).

I see this line of argumentation regularly, but since those movements were brought down with significant police and military operations, I don't see them as good examples for why Muslim extremism should not be brought down by police and military operations. There are other reasons, but this comparison doesn't qualify.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#286

Post by cygx »

Arnt wrote: post #259
cygx wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know how the process of computing an average works? Im guessing you're not living in, say, Egypt or Pakistan, are you?

No. I live in a city with a considerable number of muslims and a considerable number of apostates. Isn't that the kind of place where you'd expect apostates to be killed, if anywhere?

Isn't that the kind of place where you'd expect apostates to be killed, if anywhere?

Not necessarily, no. Support for murdering apostates can be low in countries with a majority Muslim population (Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are all in the low single-digit percentage range, it's at 8% in Turkey), and the figures for minority Muslim communities in western countries might be comparably low.

Also note that supporting an action does not automatically translate to enacting such an action, but such a mindset is still problematic.

And as the cases of Bangladeshi atheists that have been hacked to death show, such things do happen. Generally, apostates probably know to keep their head down in places where it is an issue. The fact that you say you live in a place with a considerable number of apostates shows that it's likely not one where you are.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#287

Post by cdash »

acveilleux wrote: post #217
megalodon wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

World's largest arms exporter: US ($10,194,000,000 in 2014) World's largest arms importer: Saudi Arabia ($4,243,000,000 in 2014) To me, these are scary numbers. > When a country decides to invest in arms, rather than in education, housing, the environment, and health services for its people, it is depriving a whole generation of its right to prosperity and happiness. We have produced one firearm for every ten inhabit…

Just as scary, these numbers are small fractions on the US arms procurement budget. DoD spent about $115B in 2013 and budgeted $100B in 2014 for procurement (PDF source: http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudge... ) That's a lot of weapons.

Also adding that the total military budget of the US is 600+ billion a year. Talk about scary and it is not just an idle threat. The US has killed more civilians than any other actor in the modern world.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#288

Post by lars »

crusso wrote: post #151
jacquesm wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a significant number of adherents of Islam hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society. Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too. All these people have at least one thing in common: they would like to change society to suit their ends. And a very large number of people in my country would happily throw back those fleeing the carnage to become v…

Significant numbers of non-Islam subscribers hold ideas that are incompatible with an open society too If that's your contention then you'd need to account for the high terrorist attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers.

> the high terrorist attack output of Islamists vs other non-Islam subscribers

I wonder if this is really true though. Some statistics:

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-20...

While Anders Breivik was shooting kids on the island in Norway, the Norwegian media were speculating that it was most likely perpetrated by muslim extremists. Even though we've historically had way more examples of terrorism perpetrated against immigration related targets by right-wing Norwegians (which was the case with Breivik as well).

The average Norwegian won't remember any of the mosques, immigrant reception centers and immigrant stores that were bombed in Norway in the past. I guess terrorism is quickly forgotten when it isn't your own group that is targeted.

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#289

Post by zombees »

ausjke wrote: post #279

I'm agnostic so really no prejudice on either side. I see so many religions/gods on earth and I feel Muslim is the one that stays with their stone age laws/rules without updating/revising the original released versions. Other religions seem evolving over time, but Muslim is different and I feel they are just so out, thus all these tragedies. Anything that has no ability to upgrade/evolve overtime is doomed to be lose…

Islam?

Re: VLC contributor living in Aleppo writing about the Paris attacks

#290

Post by Natanael_L »

tome wrote: post #280
jacquesm wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it would be absolutely trivial to sketch the situation from a point of view where Bush, Blair and whole bunch of others would be seen as the terrorist masterminds causing the deaths of untold numbers of civilians. All in the name of the good of course, which is exactly what makes them just as bad as IS in that respect. They all actually believe they are doing the right thing. And that's a discussion that has…

Wow. You can argue all you want about the atrocities of western armies versus the atrocities of Islamic terror. What I find very hard to accept is that you can't see them as distinct phenomena (they may be related , but nonetheless they are not the same kind of thing, at all).

Why? Why can't they be the same thing, just in different contexts? On both sides there's people who believe the enemy will destroy the world, and believes in a particular ideal, and who sends out armies to achieve their goals, and both sides are very clearly not very precise in who they actually target (the bombing on Doctor's Without Border, anyone?). Both sides cause tons of civilian casualties, both refuse to apologize, both sides are full of rhetorics, both want the other to disappear, etc...

While you can point out differences in their justifications, you can't pretend their actions are unrelated.

Post reply on HN