• We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
  • Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.

News Terrorist Attack In Paris

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is indeed.

My comparison was to contrast the death toll, reporting and response, to attacks that were allegedly inspired by a middle Eastern movement,

With the reporting and response to the much larger death toll due to a much more concretely defined group of individuals.

That point forms one part of the much wider points that I've been trying to convey in my previous comments, in which I'm arguing against collective punishment on racist, nationalist, sexist etc basis.
 
I think police, the political role thereof, and their abuse of public trust? this is a topic for another thread, @.

For my own part, I mostly meet Muslims in the hospital, where they are taking care of me. Except for the really judgy Indian doc who may or may not be Muslim anyway? They are nice folks.
The ones I have met at work?
Good people.

...To condemn the kind, talented, good-hearted people I have met because of DAESH/ISIS? When DAESH is generally abhorrent to most Muslims?
Nope
I am not going to turn into a bigot because of the Paris attacks.

The Parisians are victims of DAESH. So are the Syrian refugees.

Not denying the refugees need very careful vetting and heavy duty monitoring.
 
Let my fingers do the walking and found:
Concepts and implications of altruism bias and pathological altruism,” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Oakland University systems engineer Barbara Oakley argues that intentions to help people all too often hurt them. Unintended harm is the outcome of she what calls pathological altruism. She defines pathological altruism “as behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.” In her study Oakley explores the psychological and evolutionary underpinnings of empathy and altruism and how they can go wrong. It turns out that pathological altruism is a pervasive problem affecting public policy.

As Oakley explains:

Good government is a foundation of large-scale societies; government programs are designed to minimize a variety of social problems. Although virtually every program has its critics, well designed programs can be effective in bettering people’s lives with few negative tradeoffs. From a scientifically-based perspective, however, some programs are deeply problematic, often as a result of superficial notions on the part of program designers or implementers about what is genuinely beneficial for others, coupled with a lack of accountability for ensuing programmatic failures. In these pathologically altruistic enterprises, confirmation bias, discounting, motivated reasoning, and egocentric certitude that our approach is the best—in short, the usual biases that underlie pathologies of altruism—appear to play important roles.

[snip]

Oakley further argues:

Is it possible that some social advocacy and social justice efforts result in the same types of pernicious effects on a societal scale so that efforts to build cooperation instead inhibit it? We often do not know, because well-meaning advocates have made raising those questions a taboo. Framing issues in the form of pathologies of altruism and altruism bias forms a mechanism for breaking through the taboo and making dispassionate studies of when helping is truly helping and when it is contributing inadvertent harm.

Oakley concludes by reminding us…

… it is important to note that during the twentieth century, tens of millions individuals were killed under despotic regimes that rose to power through appeals to altruism. The study of pathological altruism, in other words, is not a minor, inconsequential offshoot of the study of altruism but instead is a topic of overwhelming scientific and public importance." (via Reason, June 19, 2013, article titled Pathological Altruism: The Road to Hell Really Is Often Paved With Good Intentions Argues New Study by Ronald Bailey (just in case the link disappears) and link https://reason.com/blog/2013/06/19/pathological-altruism-the-road-to-hell-r )
 
Hi stickler
If you read my earlier posts, you'll see that that was only one small point amongst many larger, and imo, entirely on topic points.

The subsequent posts are directly answering criticisms made, in the thread where they were raised.

I do have threads along the lines of "why is it so difficult to talk discuss police abuses with statists" and "which is worse, a statist or a racist". Where I'm happy to engage In longer discussions on those subjects.
 
...To condemn the kind, talented, good-hearted people I have met because of DAESH/ISIS? When DAESH is generally abhorrent to most Muslims?
Nope
I am not going to turn into a bigot because of the Paris attacks.

The Parisians are victims of DAESH. So are the Syrian refugees.

Not denying the refugees need very careful vetting and heavy duty monitoring.

I would codify that to say so are "legitimate" Syrian refugees. Though I dispute that in global circles groups like DAESH/Isis/Isil... Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, ad nauseam (feel free to take a gander at Wiki's list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups and not all being Muslim I might add) are generally abhorrent to most Muslims. Sources please as polling that I'm aware of does not bear this out.
 
Because it's easier to conflate issues than address them.

Both require attention,

Justice supposedly wears a blindfold, rather than being selectively blind.

It is noticeable how many want to address the smaller issue, of far more dubious attribution.

And how much reaction and disagreement there has been over one line, amongst many.

The point that my posts were making, is that we are not at a stage to begin retribution,

That any retribution should be proportionate, only against the guilty individuals, and not against an innocent group tarred by very tenuous association of race or creed.

That we are individuals, who, in theory can choose to associate or not to associate. Rather than some Borg like collective, for which all issues must be fit into a procrustean bed of one size must fit all.
 
Justice may, but discussion doesn't.

I don't think I've asked for retribution, I've asked to vetting for the purposes of national security and to allow in as "refugees" those who are least likely to incite violence or are properly vetted instead of my governance apparent policy of exclusively allowing and granting unvetted Sunnis lawful status in my nation. If preference is to be given Federally I'd prefer it to be given also to the groups who have been persecuted. We are a nation of immigrants, but many historically in my nation were victims of persecution. I see no difficulty here.

So where you're getting this "retribution thing" is basically a veiled accusation because I don't share your opinion about throwing open my country's boarders.
 
@ Alba:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ant-muslim-populations-much-disdain-for-isis/

The Pew research center's pretty well regarded for social research. I note that ISIS/DAESH is only popular in Pakistan.

...While I'm horrified at what DAESH is doing in Syria and Iraq, I am VERY concerned about Pakistan. DAESH is quite active there as well.

...Not just hundreds of thousands of fleeing Pakistanis on my mind here. I should not have to remind you Pakistan has nukes.
And a not terribly stable government.
DAESH has probably got tentacles into the Pakistani state at this point.

...That all ought to make everybody nervous.

Edit:
I misread graph! But what I said about Pakistan...hmm...basically stands. DAESH is active there...and I'd say the neutrality of opinion on them in Pakistan is NOT good.

Pakistan tends to a pretty fundamentalist version of Islam in the first place...I remember hearing that their Sufis are commonly accused of not being True Muslims...
 
Last edited:
Not so much that the state itself would nuke someone...
But DAESH attempting a coup is one thought...
...Another is elements within the military becoming compromised and things going missing...
...40 foot cargo container, heavily lead lined, bounced through a port or two first? (I know the coasties have radiation detection capability offshore)...
I have a really morbid imagination, I guess? Such that I actually play " what would a terrorist blow up?"
Use of planes as weapons had occurred to me before 9/11, I was stunned but not *that* surprised, a plane full of jet fuel is a flying bomb, basically.

...Condemning anyone for a category like race, religion, gender, or national origin? It disturbs me deeply.
That doesn't indicate a want to blindly take people in.
It indicates my deep dedication to not engaging in or endorsing prejudice.
To think that one or two in 10,000 is an infiltrator?
Quite possible...so you are going to make them all languish in squalid camps, neither able to resettle or go home?
That's fair?
 
I thought the exact same thing about planes and I always had a bad feeling about the Towers and always refused to go up in them...

Pakistan would be turned to glass!
 
  • Like
Reactions: C j
Status
Not open for further replies.

Donation drives

2026 Donation Goal

Goal
$1,800.00
Earned
$910.00
This donation drive ends in
0 hours, 0 minutes, 0 seconds
  50.6%

Trending content

Featured content

Back
Top Bottom