French teacher murdered for Muhammad

[warpus]

My question isn't a question. I am just pointing out that French secularism is basically a religion.

Ah excuse me then, I thought that since you were replying to me and quoting me you were trying to engage me in conversation.

Yeah, I know I didn't answer. I don't really 'get' French secularism. I'm just giving you insight one how the knowledge will build upon itself.

It's probably best understood via the lens of history and the way French society was formed, but I don't really know a ton about it either so that could be a bunch of bs.

 

[Angst]

French secularism used to be pretty extreme. The French Enlightenment and revolution were, to put it in a pg-13 way, nutty. There are still traces of this kind of extremism in Western thought today.

 

[red_elk]

Anyone inclined to something bad... inclined... will use any argument he can find... wouldn't he ?
How about all the mass shootings ? or Jack the Ripper ?

Social environment matters. People are not born zealots, they are being indoctrinated.

 

[Akka]

My question isn't a question. I am just pointing out that French secularism is basically a religion.

That's about as valid and smart as saying that scientific method is religious because "people have faith in science".

 

[El_Machinae]

It more says that people can be religiously scientific. We're seeing that today, even, where various people chose their favorite scientist "pope" and just believe their proclamations rather than taking pains to understand the underlying science. Obviously, we cannot all be specialists, but ho-boy, my feed is full of people who think they are.

Secularism can cross that threshold, too. People can try to excise religious influence from their decisions, but then actually go too far and actively attack faith. You can maybe tell when the secularism becomes religious when people become offended by things they proclaim are evidence of religion.

There is a very big difference between a secular society and an atheist society, in practice. "Like a religion" is also being used metaphorically.

Social environment matters. People are not born zealots, they are being indoctrinated.

Partially true. A sufficient number of people go through a phase of their life where they seek to become zealots. How that manifests will be predictable based on their culture, obviously, but enough people build their own crazy.

Of the people who traveled to heed ISIS's call, you'll find a reasonable percentage had 'normal' upbringings. Obviously, you can find variance if you look closely enough at anything, but they weren't 'indoctrinated' they sought out the indoctrination.

 

[Akka]

It more says that people can be religiously scientific.

Or much more commonly, that religious people are simply projecting their own mindset over others.

Secularism can cross that threshold, too. People can try to excise religious influence from their decisions, but then actually go too far and actively attack faith. You can maybe tell when the secularism becomes religious when people become offended by things they proclaim are evidence of religion.

When I'm offended by someone showing me his dick, it doesn't mean I'm a prude that want to repress sex and dictate what people do in their bedroom. It just means I've basic decency and I expect people keeping their private parts for their bedroom.
Religious people seems to have a big trouble understanding the "keep your private stuff where it's private".

 

[El_Machinae]

If you're offended by someone's penis, it means that you were raised in a society (or habituated yourself) to a specific style of 'modesty' that you think that you can impose on other people because "it's better".

But this discussion is basically over. People can hold their secularism too zealously. "Religiously" is just a stand-in for a longer metaphor.

 

[Akka]

If you're offended by someone's penis, it means that you were raised in a society (or habituated yourself) to a specific style of 'modesty' that you think that you can impose on other people because "it's better".

1) It doesn't change the point in the slightest - it's nothing to do with being "religious", it's about "politeness standards". Telling people to keep their faith opinion to their private sphere is completely different than telling people they should believe in the same faith as oneself. That's a fallacy because both concepts are fundamentally different, and that's exactly why I used the "science is just religion" idiocy parallel, because it tries to equate two things that are FUNDAMENTALLY different by using some false superficial common point (like the abuse of the word "belief").

2) Your formulation is deliberately biased, as if telling people to not invade others space was some sort of oppression. That's just the exact same fallacy as above, BTW.

But this discussion is basically over. People can hold their secularism too zealously. "Religiously" is just a stand-in for a longer metaphor.

First, it's a bad stand-in. The correct stand-in would be "fanaticism".
Second, it's still dishonest, because secularism is not the opposite of religion, it's just the separation of religion and state. Trying to pretend that they are both on the same axis is just falling back, again, on the false equivalency that I spoke about in my first post and that I detailed above.

 

[El_Machinae]

Second, it's still dishonest, because secularism is not the opposite of religion, it's just the separation of religion and state. Trying to pretend that they are both on the same axis is just falling back, again, on the false equivalency that I spoke about in my first post and that I detailed above.

I literally mentioned the difference between a secularist state and an atheist state, so I already understood this! I'm perfectly okay with using 'secularist' to mean excising religion from the civil apparatus.

But no, some people treat science religiously. Popes, purity standards, taking things on faith, the feeling of the numinous, etc.. The metaphor flows. Some metaphors make more sense from different cultural upbringings. "Fanaticism" works, too!

Who's responsible for offense is almost always a difficult discussion in a liberal society. There is no solution but compromise.

To quote the philosopher

This is an example of hardcore liberalism. I call myself a liberal but ironduck has gone to far.

Is it to much to ask to wear clothes in public? I mean god, ironduck whats wrong with you?

 

[red_elk]

Of the people who traveled to heed ISIS's call, you'll find a reasonable percentage had 'normal' upbringings. Obviously, you can find variance if you look closely enough at anything, but they weren't 'indoctrinated' they sought out the indoctrination.

They were indoctrinated. Whether they sought it or were particularly susceptible to it wouldn't matter if there was no fundamentalists influence.
Part of them still might do harm to other people, but without the influence of ideology which specifically taught to do that, most of them would fall for something less radical.
Or simply grow up and become less susceptible to it. They often target teenagers.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I know what you're saying. I was distinguishing between 'imposed' and 'sought out'.

 

[aelf]

The last time entire villages were taken for slaves around these parts (by Russians' Tatar auxiliaries) were during the Great Northern War at the beginning of 18th century.
Edit: Not to mention that wholesale serfdom was abolished in Baltic provinces of Russian Empire just couple decades before US Civil War.
Edit 2: Not that any of this is really relevant to the general discussion.

That's like citing the fact that white Americans were also slaves at the same time as black Americans because of the Barbary pirates. Entirely useless for the argument you might be making.

I wasn't even the one who brought up Estonian slaves or the one who doubled down on the point.

You don't know crap about it, I cannot give you a proper multicultural education and inject you anti bigot vaccine because I gotta thick schedule in Capital.

It's amazing how some cfc member look very energetic pushing the alt right agenda whenever ISIS made an operation. I don't know should Ilaugh or should I vomit instead. Lots of information and reading just to end up as a bigot.

Some people are simply a wealth of ignorance. There could be different reasons for this. Some people stopped learning long ago, while some just lack the lived experience to understand something (like the person who has never seen the colour red in the Chinese Room thought experiment and only has an intellectual concept of it). These people are nearly impossible to educate on the topics they are blind to, kind of like boomers. Best to just move on.

It more says that people can be religiously scientific.

Like this one?

 

[Joij21]

The British-Caribbean slave-holders weren't at all upset by 1832 illegalization of slavery, eh? Well, it seems they were quite upset and angry at the issue, actually, and cried that ruin and chaos would befall the Caribbean islands and the wealth of the British Empire would collapse, and other rhetoric, actually. But that doesn't sound upset at all, does it?

Yes but they were a minority in the empire at the time, so they couldn't resist. If America was still a British colony then the 1832 act would immediately trigger the American Revolution just later.

 

[Yeekim]

That's like citing the fact that white Americans were also slaves at the same time as black Americans because of the Barbary pirates. Entirely useless for the argument you might be making.

I wasn't even the one who brought up Estonian slaves or the one who doubled down on the point.

I was merely pointing out that US is NOT a good example of a secular country when you felt the need to once again bring up ethnic makeup of Estonia in a weird kind of ad hominem attack.

 

[Patine]

Yes but they were a minority in the empire at the time, so they couldn't resist. If America was still a British colony then the 1832 act would immediately trigger the American Revolution just later.

White Slave-holders were a minority in the Antebellum U.S. Somehow, their influence was immensely disproportionate to their numbers, however.

 

[aelf]

I was merely pointing out that US is NOT a good example of a secular country when you felt the need to once again bring up ethnic makeup of Estonia in a weird kind of ad hominem attack.

That's the stupidest comeback I couldn't have imagined.

The issue of white slaves hundreds of years ago has nothing to do with your very real inexperience with multicultural societies and racial/religious issues within them. It also has nothing to do with the US example.

 

[Akka]

That's the stupidest comeback I couldn't have imagined.
The issue of white slaves hundreds of years ago has nothing to do with your very real inexperience with multicultural societies and racial/religious issues within them. It also has nothing to do with the US example.

He clearly explained that you're projecting USA mentality in a different society, and you try to answer back by lecturing him about his inexperience with different societies. That's beautiful in an ironic sort of way.

Don't sell yourself short, man. You can clearly imagine, and produce, MUCH more stupid comebacks than his.

 

[H4run]

ad hominem attack.

In this context it's not a ad hominem, to put it lightly he was trying to sympathizes your err on understanding other culture or belief, and relate your inexperience is due to your monocultural background that doesn't provide you enough exposure with other kind except the kind that are similar to you. I can imagine you relates Islam and Muslim like those aliens in "the independent days" movie.

You see flog of immigrant running to save their life as hordes after hordes of alien invasion. I know it must be hard.

 

[Yeekim]

That's the stupidest comeback I couldn't have imagined.

The issue of white slaves hundreds of years ago has nothing to do with your very real inexperience with multicultural societies and racial/religious issues within them. It also has nothing to do with the US example.

First of all, you're equating "mostly white" with "monocultural", which is nonsensical reductionism. Estonia has rather recent experience of occupation and mass colonization, which, I can assure you, created a host of issues. Maybe not "racial", but certainly "cultural" and "ethnic".
Secondly, yes, I don't have extensive first-hand experience with racial issues in US. I've also always been both candid and aware regarding that, so I don't get the need for you to constantly harp about it.
Thirdly, this kind of distance can be both positive and negative in a discussion, unless one prefers a total echo chamber of course.

 

[Yeekim]

You see flog of immigrant running to save their life as hordes after hordes of alien invasion. I know it must be hard.

Wow. You certainly have me figured out, don't you? May I ask how exactly have you divined my position on immigration?