anyone watching that <snip> on prime time

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 4:14pm

Akrasia wrote: »

exactly the opposite. I am not judging anyone, I am only describing how the human cognitive faculties can misfire and lead to obsession under certain circumstances.

When you use the word "cult" you are instantly judging, according to the rules of this very forum.
Try calling Christianity a cult and see how long you last.

irish coldplayer · 09-01-2015 4:36pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Exactly what you said was:
Quote:
A death metal fan will think death metal is the only kind of music worth listening to.

Since I am a death metal fan and I think other kinds of music are worth listening to which I do myself, I don't need to read any research you want to cite. I know what you said is provably bull**** instantly.
The real reason why it's a **** theory is that it can make absolutely no prediction as to which people will become radicalized. It's 100% post hoc. Radicals are radical because the were radicalised. If it can't predict jack ****, that's about the value of the theory.

Dan, can you please link to the post where I supposedly "exactly" said the above?
cant?
that's because I never said it.
You quoted Akrasia and attributed it to me.. again.
Seriously can you not read who the author of particular posts are?

Also the bit in bold, its embarrassing for anyone who is trying to engage in a rational debate to write that sentence.
If it is as you say bullsh1t, as these are peer reviewed articles would you be so kind as to link me some studies which contradict the research I have referred to.

darkpagandeath · 09-01-2015 4:37pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

When you use the word "cult" you are instantly judging, according to the rules of this very forum.
Try calling Christianity a cult and see how long you last.

Plenty of Christian cults, Plenty here as well....

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 4:47pm

irish coldplayer wrote: »

Also the bit in bold, its embarrassing for anyone who is trying to engage in a rational debate to write that sentence.
If it is as you say bullsh1t, as these are peer reviewed articles would you be so kind as to link me some studies which contradict the research I have referred to.

If you say you have 1000 papers proving death metal fans don't like any other kind of music then yup, I can tell you they're all **** as I'm a death metal fan who likes other kinds of music.
It'd be the same as you listing 1000 papers telling me it doesn't rain in Ireland while I'm looking out the window at it.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 4:48pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Plenty of Christian cults, Plenty here as well....

Which isn't the same thing as calling Christianity a cult with respect to whether calling something a cult is judgemental or not, but yeah. :-)

EDIT: oh, you might be doing Cockney slang?

Herb Powell · 09-01-2015 4:53pm

not yet wrote: »

The most popular name 4 years running in Antwerp was Muhammad.

It's reckoned that in 25 years Sweden will be 51% Muslim as will some other European countries in 50 years..

6 million Muslims in France, Every single Muslim on earth is hot wired to convert the plant to Islam...

Run People, run away and don't come back..

If they are supposedly overrunning the place, and are all hellbent on terror, then how have you not noticed the millions and millions who don't do anything of the sort?

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

At present its meant to be more then that.

If UK keeps going the way it is it will be same by 2045. UK seem be doing something about it though soon enough.

So too will Germany if the latest marches in major cities ate anything to go by(although media describe them like Nazi marches)

Because it's Nazi bull****, for the most part.

mullinr2 wrote: »

Here is were the Muslims are wrong. The war on terror in Iraq/Afghanistan etc is exactly that, a war on terrorism. Its not a war against Islam in which Muslims feel it is. They use this to justify the attacks in Paris. This was an attack on Western principles and culture. The war on terrorism is not a cultural or religious war.

War on terror me fucckin hoop, that war was about power and oil.

goose2005 · 09-01-2015 4:54pm

My name is URL wrote: »

What's he supposed to be a lecturer of anyway? I can't find any listing or mention of him on the TCD staff pages.

Arabic.

Potatoeman · 09-01-2015 4:55pm

People will go on about freedom of expression which I agree with but look at some of the banned threads on boards. People are more sensitive about certain things.

You know what they say about liberals and fascists being a short step apart.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 4:59pm

irish coldplayer wrote: »

Dan, can you please link to the post where I supposedly "exactly" said the above?
cant?
that's because I never said it.
You quoted Akrasia and attributed it to me.. again.
Seriously can you not read who the author of particular posts are?

Whatever. Exactly what the post YOU THANKED said then.
Or are you now disowning posts you thank? Hammering and clicking randomly sounds about right though.

irish coldplayer · 09-01-2015 5:38pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

If you say you have 1000 papers proving people death metal fans don't like any other kind of music then yup, I can tell you they're all **** as I'm a death metal fan who likes other kinds of music.
It'd be the same as you listing 1000 papers telling me it doesn't rain in Ireland while I'm looking out the window at it.

Dan that is not what Akrasia is trying to say as it does not apply to everyone all the time and every context to that extent.
To continue the music analogy;
Growing up in the early 90's I loved Grunge Nirvana, Pearl Jam etc. but I also loved dance music and stuff like the Prodigy and listened to rap such as NWA, and even listened to Irish trad as well.
But Grunge at the time is what I was most into, much like yourself with death metal.
I had friends who were into dance music and would listen to nothing else, to them nothing else was worth listening to, they wouldn't even consider other genres to them everything else was sh1te.
(this is what Akrasia was trying to get at)

You seem to have taken personal offense with the death metal analogy but any type of music could have been used to make the point.
There are no papers (that I know of) that discuss heuristic availability and death metal. Akrasia just used it as an arbitrary example he could have use Rap, classical, rock, bluegrass or whatever music you want to insert.
Nobody is saying that liking death metal and other types of music are mutually exclusive, that would be irrational.
Also if something is true for you personally that does not mean it is a universal truth.

I thanked his post because it brought up an interesting psychological theory that I hadn't thought of in a long time and how it could be applied to extremism.
That doesn't excuse you attributing comments to me that I did not post, if I did that to someone I would have the good grace to admit and apologise for it.

Dan_Solo · 09-01-2015 5:45pm

irish coldplayer wrote: »

But Grunge at the time is what I was most into, much like yourself with death metal.

One again, you're just hammering out random fantasyland twaddle. I said I was a death metal fan. I never said it was what I was most into. Your analogy is worthless.

irish coldplayer wrote: »

I thanked his post because it brought up an interesting psychological theory that I hadn't thought of in a long time and how it could be applied to extremism.
That doesn't excuse you attributing comments to me that I did not post, if I did that to someone I would have the good grace to admit and apologise for it.

So sorry for mistakenly attributing to you a post that you agreed with. Gee, that made a huge difference to the debate didn't it. Real game changer in the argument.
Methinks somebody has fcuk all else to go on so has begun desperately clawing for the pedantry card...

irish coldplayer · 09-01-2015 6:05pm

Dan_Solo wrote: »

One again, you're just hammering out random fantasyland twaddle. I said I was a death metal fan. I never said it was what I was most into. Your analogy is worthless.

Apologies if I misinterpreted your level of affection for death metal, it still doesn't invalidate my analogy it doesn't have to be about you personally.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So sorry for mistakenly attributing to you a post that you agreed with. Gee, that made a huge difference to the debate didn't it. Real game changer in the argument.
Methinks somebody has fcuk all else to go on so has begun desperately clawing for the pedantry card...

I've made my point, presented evidence and tried to clarify it, I cant do any more and we're dragging the thread off-topic so lets agree leave it there.

K4t · 09-01-2015 8:02pm

emmetlego wrote: »

Now we know not to take you seriously!

He inspired decades of hatred and murder.

How big is that rock you've been living under??? Good grief! Troll!

I'll say it again, did Ian Paisley's tongue have magical powers whereby it could dislodge itself from his body, pick up a gun, force that gun into a person's hand, physically forcing that person to shoot another person. Until you can prove that to me then I'll stand by what I said till the day I die.

seligehgit · 09-01-2015 9:54pm

blacklilly wrote: »

He can speak all he wants it just shouldn't be given air time. He is a dangerous man and also commented upon the use of Shannon airport in the discussion. I hope a very close eye is being kept on him

His mention of the US troops use of Shannon airport sent a chill down my spine.:(

The_Kew_Tour · 10-01-2015 12:53am

Herb Powell wrote: »

Because it's Nazi bull****, for the most part..

Maybe in Germany, not in Sweden though.

Geuze · 10-01-2015 1:06am

My name is URL wrote: »

What's he supposed to be a lecturer of anyway? I can't find any listing or mention of him on the TCD staff pages.

He's an "adjunct" lecturer.

Which I suspect means part-time.

the_monkey · 10-01-2015 1:19am

Just watching this now - " Drinking too much water can kill you - just like too much free speech" ????

WHAT???

WHAT ??

WHAT ??

IS he ****ING SERIOUS ??????

How is this wanker not deported ????

He is inciting terrorism here !!!!!!!

Richard · 10-01-2015 8:10am

K4t wrote: »

As was his right.

The hatred and the killing wasn't done because of Paisley. And he is not an excuse for either.

He "inspired" loyalists with a sense of grievance who then went out and killed people. He didn't pull any triggers or told anyone else to do so, but it was his words that helped foster division in NI.

Ultimately no-one had to listen to him, but many people did and they went on to do terrible things. Obviously there are many people to blame for the troubles, not least the IRA but Paisleys words stoked the fires immensely.

Richard · 10-01-2015 8:15am

fryup wrote: »

my point is... some people were saying during the troubles that gerry adams shouldn't have been given air time because he was seen as a dangerous militant

in short..we can't ban people from the airwaves just because we don't agree with their views

It's not about disagreeing with their views. It's because their views are dangerous.

K4t · 10-01-2015 1:08pm

the_monkey wrote: »

Just watching this now - " Drinking too much water can kill you - just like too much free speech" ????

WHAT???

WHAT ??

WHAT ??

IS he ****ING SERIOUS ??????

How is this wanker not deported ????

He is inciting terrorism here !!!!!!!

While I share your outrage, and if you look back at the first page of this thread I condemned that water comparison as both terrifying and evil, he should neither be deported or arrested for inciting anything.

Richard wrote: »

He "inspired" loyalists with a sense of grievance who then went out and killed people. He didn't pull any triggers or told anyone else to do so, but it was his words that helped foster division in NI.

He may well have told someone to do so. That still doesn't make him a criminal.

Ultimately no-one had to listen to him,

Agreed.

but many people did and they went on to do terrible things.

Agreed.

Obviously there are many people to blame for the troubles, not least the IRA but Paisleys words stoked the fires immensely.

No doubt they did, and if it wasn't his words it would have been someone else's. I too blame Paisley for many of his actions but I don't think anything he said should be illegal, nor should it ever.

Richard · 10-01-2015 1:21pm

K4t wrote: »

.
He may well have told someone to do so. That still doesn't make him a criminal.

If he had told someone to go out and shoot someone (which I personally doubt) then it does make him a criminal

No doubt they did, and if it wasn't his words it would have been someone else's. I too blame Paisley for many of his actions but I don't think anything he said should be illegal, nor should it ever.

There may have been other people, but I don't think it would have been to the same extent. In any case, his actions led others to murder. I'm not saying he alone is to blame, nor am I saying that those who pulled the trigger aren't guilty of their crimes. They are. But his words did damage. Whether that should make him criminal or not is another issue.

K4t · 10-01-2015 1:30pm

Richard wrote: »

If he had told someone to go out and shoot someone (which I personally doubt) then it does make him a criminal

It shouldn't.

There may have been other people, but I don't think it would have been to the same extent.

The extent to which they would have influenced people? The extent to which they would have obeyed him? The extent to how closely he resembled Paisley in appearance? You've made a very broad statement there.

Let's say there was no Paisley. Do you think people wouldn't have murdered each other? Because if you do, it's extremely naiive.

Richard · 10-01-2015 5:48pm

K4t wrote: »

It shouldn't.

It does. Directing terrorism is a crime. If he had done that it would have been illegal.

The extent to which they would have influenced people? The extent to which they would have obeyed him? The extent to how closely he resembled Paisley in appearance? You've made a very broad statement there.

Let's say there was no Paisley. Do you think people wouldn't have murdered each other? Because if you do, it's extremely naiive.

Of course they would. But I am suggesting that his rhetoric whipped up loyalists to oppose the reforms of the NI government and later the Sunningdale Agreement. He encouraged (though he would deny this) anti-Catholic sentiments which remain to this day.

I mentioned one individual here. There were many involved in the troubles. But few were involved in political life in NI right through it. I don't know what it would have been like without Paisley. But I am convinced that without his rhetoric things would have been better.

mullinr2 · 10-01-2015 9:44pm

seligehgit wrote: »

His mention of the US troops use of Shannon airport sent a chill down my spine.:(

Same here. I couldn't believe it when he mentioned shannon and the way in which he said it was in an aggressive tone.

Id say Shannon airport is on the extremists radar.

K4t · 10-01-2015 10:18pm

Richard wrote: »

It does. Directing terrorism is a crime. If he had done that it would have been illegal.

And I disagree. If he has nobody to direct orders to, the terrorism would not occur. If he inflicted acts of terrorism physically himself then he should be arrested.

Of course they would. But I am suggesting that his rhetoric whipped up loyalists to oppose the reforms of the NI government and later the Sunningdale Agreement. He encouraged (though he would deny this) anti-Catholic sentiments which remain to this day.

Nothing wrong with any of that and nothing anyone should be arrested for. People use rhetoric to influence political decisions and encourage anti-Catholic sentiments everyday. It should never be a crime.

I mentioned one individual here. There were many involved in the troubles. But few were involved in political life in NI right through it. I don't know what it would have been like without Paisley. But I am convinced that without his rhetoric things would have been better.

And maybe you're right about that. But it should never be something he is arrested for.

Richard · 11-01-2015 9:59am

K4t wrote: »

And I disagree. If he has nobody to direct orders to, the terrorism would not occur. If he inflicted acts of terrorism physically himself then he should be arrested.

So to take a different example, German commanders in WWII who didn't acrually kill anyone are ok, because they only told others to do so?

And maybe you're right about that. But it should never be something he is arrested for.

My original post was to take issue with the statement that freedom of expression never harmed anyone and never will. That obviously isn't the case.

K4t · 11-01-2015 10:04pm

Richard wrote: »

So to take a different example, German commanders in WWII who didn't acrually kill anyone are ok, because they only told others to do so?

What about them? Do I think they should be criminally charged for giving orders? No.

My original post was to take issue with the statement that freedom of expression never harmed anyone and never will.

It hasn't, not physical harm anyway. Has it ever been a cause? Yes, probably.

That obviously isn't the case.

It is.

Mardy Bum · 11-01-2015 11:53pm

K4t wrote: »

What about them? Do I think they should be criminally charged for giving orders? No.

You do realise people go to jail for ordering killings. It is a pretty vital law for any country to have.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 12-01-2015 12:15am

the_monkey wrote: »

Just watching this now - " Drinking too much water can kill you - just like too much free speech" ????

!!

Well aren't we lucky the government brought in the water charge to reduce mortality....

K4t · 12-01-2015 12:22am

Mardy Bum wrote: »

You do realise people go to jail for ordering killings.

I do indeed and I think it is wrong that they go to jail.

It is a pretty vital law for any country to have.

It's not though.

anyone watching that <snip> on prime time

Comments