Merged Terror attack on German Christmas market

[William Parcher]

I reported this thread as having been derailed (without blaming anyone). Nothing happened.

 

[Craig B]

I reported this thread as having been derailed (without blaming anyone). Nothing happened.

It's not obvious to me that a discussion of possible religious sectarian motives for this atrocity, and how that might affect the perception of coreligionists of the perpetrator, is a significant derail. I think it's relevant.

As to the killing of the suspect at a traffic checkpoint. There isn't any further information about that. When it becomes available, I'm sure it will be discussed here. For myself I have made several references to the death of these terrorists following these atrocities, and have concluded that they're more likely by such methods to conquer Hell than to conquer the Earth.

 

[John Nowak]

That is too bizarre for comment. The flu didn't destroy civilisation.

Not to speak for McHronzi, but I think you're really bending over backwards to misunderstand him.

My impression is that McHronzi believes that diseases could plausibly be weaponized to produce a pandemic more severe than the 1918 flu. In my opinion, he's incorrect; Gain-A-Function research pretty much invariably cripples the organisms it's used on. Evolution has billions of years and a petri dish the size of a planet; if something significantly more deadly than existing agents were possible, we'd all be dead by now.

 

[Craig B]

Not to speak for McHronzi, but I think you're really bending over backwards to misunderstand him.

My impression is that McHronzi believes that diseases could plausibly be weaponized to produce a pandemic more severe than the 1918 flu. In my opinion, he's incorrect.

If he means that, I have indeed misunderstood him, but if he does mean that, his wording is hopelessly ambiguous.

bears uncanny resemblance to how the terrorists ...​

which is most easily read as implying that the activities of the terrorists resemble disease, rather than that they intend to use disease as a weapon. But presumably McHrozni will enlighten me, if I'm wrong. I don't think he would be afraid to correct his interlocutors if he thinks they're departing from proper standards.

 

[William Parcher]

It's not obvious to me that a discussion of possible religious sectarian motives for this atrocity, and how that might affect the perception of coreligionists of the perpetrator, is a significant derail. I think it's relevant.

General skepticism and debate on religion is a derail in a thread about a specific incident. It has now come to dominate this thread. But really it's a topic that should be taken up in a different section and there the debaters can reference this thread about this specific incident.

As to the killing of the suspect at a traffic checkpoint. There isn't any further information about that. When it becomes available, I'm sure it will be discussed here. For myself I have made several references to the death of these terrorists following these atrocities, and have concluded that they're more likely by such methods to conquer Hell than to conquer the Earth.

As long as it's directly related to the incident then it's not a derail. But look at the majority of the posts in this thread. They don't make any reference to the incident. These kinds of derails can be applied to any incident that is related to Islam or even perceived to be related.

There is no good reason why a current incident thread like this one shouldn't be more than a page or so. Forum managers need to focus on keeping threads in SI&CE from being derailed, as they so frequently are.

It must be horrible for a visitor to the ISF. What are they saying about this breaking news event? Oh, they have a thread but they aren't talking about it.

 

[Darat]

I'm aware of that. What of it?

The question in Christianity is whether Christ was a divine being or not and other such nonsense. The question in Islam is whether Muslims are allowed to let unbelievers live in peace or are they supposed to chop off their heads if they can - which is really a tad more fundamental and more than a bit unnerving, unlike the division in Christianity which is irrelevant if you don't fervently believe one or the other option. The first religion can live without a central authority, the second one needs it. Deal with it.

McHrozni

Wow just wow.

 

[Darat]

I'm not really fine with those either, due to the unofficial pressure a member of religion is under to subject themselves to that authority. That said Jewish legal tradition is a tad more benign than Islamic and doesn't invoke quite the same implications as the appendage-chopping Sharia does. It's understandable, logical and even proper that Sharia courts invoke significantly more resentment, even if they're not allowed to mutilate their victims.



Aren't those intended to settle disputes within the organization of the Church only? If so that's a bit different, I think.

McHrozni

All arbitration panels have to abide by UK law in all secular matters.

 

[Darat]

My argument has nothing to do with responsibility or guilt. I'll give you two more tries. Good luck.



Really? Please list three.



Make a case as to why that would be beneficial, like I did for Muslims, and I'll be willing to consider your argument. If it's persuasive I'll even start organizing an effort.

You may begin.

McHrozni

Out of curiosity why do you get to set the number?

 

[McHrozni]

Hmm.. let me spend exactly one second on that.

Poverty
Hunger
Disease

There you go.

We're working hard to eradicate those wordwide. Further,efforts by zillions of nobodies can have little impact there. They might be better goals, but such an effort would be useless against them.

Care for another try?

I mean if we are in lala land of assembling three hundred million people to protest that they know the will of an imaginary character better than some criminals who happen to disagree with them then lets aim high.

Try reading my argument for a change and address that for a change.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I see you didn't skip a beat in your complete dismissal after being informed that there actually are five hundred percent more condemnations from not just individuals but organizations repesenting their members than you thought because you couldn't be bothered to actually LOOK at my link, and rolled straight on to demanding that a website put together by a teenage girl and a few volunteers from English-language sources that don't include things like random message board or Facebook posts have FIFTY THOUSAND PERCENT more.

Sure, keep telling yourself that. I did explain what numbers are needed, what you post is indistinguishable from random noise.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Out of curiosity why do you get to set the number?

I don't get to set anything, I estimated it based on the perceptions of Muslims and terrorism. I also explained this before.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

I don't get to set anything, I estimated it based on the perceptions of Muslims and terrorism. I also explained this before.

McHrozni

That is your arbitrarily chosen figure, there is no rational explanation for you using that figure so again why do you get to set the figure?

 

[turingtest]

That is your arbitrarily chosen figure, there is no rational explanation for you using that figure so again why do you get to set the figure?

I don't understand why the numbers are relevant to begin with, even to McHrozni's argument- according to him, violence against unbelievers is a fundamental tenet of Islam, so any number protesting against that would be, for him, just a number he could paint as No True Muslims anyway.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Yeah those two have a tendency to say stupid and unreasonable things because they are both stupid and unreasonable. Should we also start amputating limbs as a first order treatment for papercuts instead of treating the problem in a more proportional manner?

Your problem is that you think Europe has a paper cut when it actually has a snake bite and a deadly dose of venom coursing through its veins.

Under those circumstances, amputation starts to sound more reasonable. Especially when the alternative is death.

 

[McHrozni]

That is your arbitrarily chosen figure, there is no rational explanation for you using that figure so again why do you get to set the figure?

As I said, I estimated it based on numbers of Muslims and on the paticipation on similar events of such nature. Rages against wordwide prosperity on G7 meeting routinely drew tens to hundreds of thousands. Political rallies feature tens of thousands of people. Rallies againt government in Venezuela and those on Hajj draws well over a million. Efforts on this scale would bring measurable results in a few years. If you want a one time event to essentially solve the issue, you're looking at 9 figures, minimum.

If you know of a more scientific approach you're welcome to present it.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I don't understand why the numbers are relevant to begin with, even to McHrozni's argument- according to him, violence against unbelievers is a fundamental tenet of Islam, so any number protesting against that would be, for him, just a number he could paint as No True Muslims anyway.

That's why Muslims must reject violence, loudly and often. It is the only effective way to counter the tenets of Islam and it is the only way non-Muslims can be reassured not all Muslims believe in that core tenent. Police can only mitigate when that effort is insufficient. It's the last line of defense, not the first and certainly not the only line as some would have it.

Feelings of Muslims are typically championed, but feelings of non-Muslims are too often ignored. You can see the results of that already in polls in US, EU and elsewhere.

McHrozni

 

[Darat]

As I said, I estimated it based on numbers of Muslims and on the paticipation on similar events of such nature. ...snip...

I know you did that's why I keep asking you why you should set the figure you've arbitrarily chosen.

So again - why should you be able to set the "appropriate" level of "protest" for over a billion people?

 

[turingtest]

That's why Muslims must reject violence, loudly and often. It is the only effective way to counter the tenets of Islam and it is the only way non-Muslims can be reassured not all Muslims believe in that core tenent. Police can only mitigate when that effort is insufficient. It's the last line of defense, not the first and certainly not the only line as some would have it.

Feelings of Muslims are typically championed, but feelings of non-Muslims are too often ignored. You can see the results of that already in polls in US, EU and elsewhere.

McHrozni

How about the fact that the great, overwhelming majority of them don't practice that core tenet? This means nothing, unless a certain number of them also make noises against it to soothe your feelings? Because AFAICT, no number of middle-of-the-roaders speaking against extremists of their faith has ever had any actual effect other than to appease folks who demand that salve.

And I have to agree with Darat that you seem to be avoiding the question he's asking in favor of the one you want to answer- not how you get your number, but why you think you have a right to choose one.

 

[Darat]

How about the fact that the great, overwhelming majority of them don't practice that core tenet? This means nothing, unless a certain number of them also make noises against it to soothe your feelings? Because AFAICT, no number of middle-of-the-roaders speaking against extremists of their faith has ever had any actual effect other than to appease folks who demand that salve.

And I have to agree with Darat that you seem to be avoiding the question he's asking in favor of the one you want to answer- not how you get your number, but why you think you have a right to choose one.

Oh rubbish! I mean everyday before I step out of my door I have to check to see if my neighbour is about to shoot me down dead or has left a bomb on the doorstep, or is forcing the next door but one neighbour to wear a burka!

 

[McHrozni]

I know you did that's why I keep asking you why you should set the figure you've arbitrarily chosen.

So again - why should you be able to set the "appropriate" level of "protest" for over a billion people?

If I got to set the figure things would be eqsy. I'd set it to the numbers we see now and the problem would be solved.
Alas, I am but an observer and based on my observations, those numbers would be necessary today.

I also presented estimates for earlier years, when things weren't quite as bad yet.

McHrozni