I agree that it's not completely impossible for there to be a violent radical Jain, but as you say, some religions are more prone to violence than others.
For the genuinely peaceable religions, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to twist the religion into supporting violence. With Islam, it's the polar opposite: hard work has to be done to reach a civilized interpretation of the text. It's certainly a good thing that people like Maajid Nawaz are doing that sort of work, but it's saddening that it has to be done in the first place.
I agree it's important not to forget this sort of thing.
Occasionally, clueless liberals will wheel out the You have to understand that jihadis are like the crazy rednecks of the middle East, which as you say, simply isn't true. Popular support is a real problem.
But that's not really what 'radicalism' means in this context, where it's a synonym for violent fundamentalism.
The fact that the Islamic religion is so violent in its texts and teachings (and please don't pretend this isn't the case) certainly is a factor in Islamic terrorism and its prevalence. If the Koran simply didn't have those awful verses, the world would be a materially better place.
I don't think it really makes sense to reason about 'radicalism' as in 'seeking rapid change'. That's not really the issue here.
My point, again, is simply that specific beliefs matter.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize Walmart doesn't pay wages to people they cut, right?
When banning likely harmful and useless ingredients from soap trips someone's totalitarian alarm, they might consider dialing it back a little.
I don't follow. If you think the ban is pointless and trivial, that proves their point, no?
...what?
Not much deterrent value in "if you get caught, someone else will pay your fine"....
But there is. This is huge black mark on their careers, no?
We're talking about two companies choosing how to display a unicode character. I see no need to assume an SJW conspiracy.
This has literally nothing to do with rights, or whiney SJW types. It's just two companies making decisions.
My internet is cheaper
No it's not. They're planning on charging more for privacy, not discounting anyone.
And yet negligent homicide is still a crime.
Just like Snowden's information revealed there shouldn't be trust in government, now we know the same about journalists.
What? How does Wikileaks' behaviour show us anything about all journalists?
How does it show us we shouldn't trust, say, Glenn Greenwald?
Man, that iab.com article is total garbage.
Paragraph after paragraph of empty marketing drivel, and no explanation whatsoever about what 'LEAN' actually means.
Light, Encrypted, Ad choice supported, Non-invasive ads.
Ok, so... define 'light'.
And here I was thinking First post! was as vacuous as a comment could get.
No. Now go back to troll school, and apply yourself this time.
This seems to be true of Spain, curiously.
It's not true of the UK though.
Not by ordinary law-abiding citizens, no. (Source: am British law-abiding citizen.)
their entire social life is other police officers
I guess the police officer I know must be the one exception, huh?
...did you forget the part when you said 'modern times'?
Aaaaaand instantly the thread spirals into irrelevant bickering about the relative merits of Israel and Palestine.
Thank you for dooming this potentially interesting discussion on the responsibilities of social media.
Next time, please make an effort to control your knee-jerk response to the word 'Israel'.
Have you not encountered the word "only" before?
Never heard of Dubai, huh?
I think we agree on all important points.
I agree that it's not completely impossible for there to be a violent radical Jain, but as you say, some religions are more prone to violence than others.
For the genuinely peaceable religions, you have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to twist the religion into supporting violence. With Islam, it's the polar opposite: hard work has to be done to reach a civilized interpretation of the text. It's certainly a good thing that people like Maajid Nawaz are doing that sort of work, but it's saddening that it has to be done in the first place.
I agree it's important not to forget this sort of thing.
Occasionally, clueless liberals will wheel out the You have to understand that jihadis are like the crazy rednecks of the middle East, which as you say, simply isn't true. Popular support is a real problem.
But that's not really what 'radicalism' means in this context, where it's a synonym for violent fundamentalism.
The fact that the Islamic religion is so violent in its texts and teachings (and please don't pretend this isn't the case) certainly is a factor in Islamic terrorism and its prevalence. If the Koran simply didn't have those awful verses, the world would be a materially better place.
I don't think it really makes sense to reason about 'radicalism' as in 'seeking rapid change'. That's not really the issue here.
My point, again, is simply that specific beliefs matter.
Relevant reading.
Buddhism is a way less violent religion than Islam. This is reflected in real-world events.
I don't get you, please explain.
Not Jainism.
The specifics of the religion really do matter.
That's like claiming Ireland is more prone to producing terrorists because of the IRA and Protestant militias. It's a logical fallacy.
So you're saying that it's categorically impossible, even in theory, for a religion to inspire violence?
This is absurd. Specific beliefs matter.