OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


Fwiffo 9 July 2015 08:01 AM
54%

If you divide christians into lutherians and catholics if lutherians are found somehow to be bad the issue of whether christians are bad because lutherians are bad doesn't that much rise up or it is moot. You don't need to decide whether lutherians represent christians because you can sort things out without the umbrella term "christians". For example the conflict in Ireland it is prety hard to tell which one is the "real christian faith". We are content with not identifying one or can understand christianity as encompassing both mutually contradictory systems (and even understand that one of the component facets protestantism has its own mutually contradictory facets). Somehow it is harder to concieve that islam might have similar structure.

Like most christians are not lutherans, designating that work-for-its-own-sake (as contrast to reward or result) is a property of the subdivision and not the general class we can expect non-lutheran christians to not exhibit it even if we lack any positive description of what the other subdivisions are like. That is when we say that work-for-its-own-sake might make people do needless busy work and feel good about it, we might want to emphasise that when we are saying these people do a bad thing that we criticise the subgroup and not christianity as a whole (ie christian workethic isn't automatically tainted by critisising lutheran work-ethic). Similarly when we critisise ISIS for things that uniquely the ISIS subgroup does we don't critisise them for being muslims. If you interpret resisting temptation as trying to kill people that do bad things that doesn't mean that resisting temptation is bad as such. But the details on what that means in practise do matter.

Martin Luther found that having a market of "buying your soul" a way into heaven was not properly connected to christian beliefs. Similarly beheading ... read more

stars0
Reply


melian 9 July 2015 08:58 AM
69%

To me, the following questions are separate:

1) Does ISIS represent all Muslims?
2) Are ISIS “real” Muslims?

Proving that the answer to the first question is negative does not prove that the answer to the second question is negative. The former seems obvious, while the latter is suspiciously similar to No True Scotsman fallacy.
it is possible to distinguish between orthodoxy and heterodoxy

If so, then could you tell me is Sunni interpretation of Islam is orthodox or heterodox? How about Shia?


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 9 July 2015 12:23 PM
57%

I meant to emphasise that the interpretations themselfs are not ambigious. Which one is orthodox is largely a historical trivia which has little bearing on validness.

I would put the statement in the same category as not calling Israel "the jewish state". It's meant to highlight they are not particularly pious and that the british beef is more with the secular side of it rather than secular vs religious. If North Korea tried to change it's name with something non-neutral like Best Korea people would not be trilled to use that name. Similarly not many people bother to mention "peoples republic" decorators in the name of China. The trouble with ISIS is that if you strip the ideologist dressing you have got nothing left. I guess the situation was similar when there were two Koreas. Maybe try calling it West-Iraq? Or Syriaq? But again that kind of name would suggest that a more permanent area would be in the formation. And usually it is good to use names that are atleast somewhat self-described.

stars0
Reply


melian 10 July 2015 11:22 AM
70%

The Western media does not call Israel “the jewish state” above all because Israel itself does not officially call itself “the jewish state”. By contrast, Iran’s official name is the Islamic Republic of Iran and the media had no scruples about using that label. It also had no trouble accepting other non-neutral labels, such as Pakistan (“the land of the clean”), “Shining Path” (for Maoist guerilla in Peru) or Korea (derived from the word “lofty”). ISIS is the only exception I know so far.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 10 July 2015 12:45 PM
64%

We don't use Taiwan's official name. We don't use North Korea's official name.

But in general we allow other nations to define their own names. That's part of standard diplomatic procedure with other nations.
But "we don't negotiate with terrorists". We don't grant them the diplomatic rights we give nations. There no reason to be a nice guy and help them with their propaganda goals. There no reason to allow them to set the terms of the debate.

stars0
Reply


melian 16 July 2015 08:07 AM
72%

Actually, Taiwan and North Korea official names are used by the media. It is true that their informal names are used more often, but just as in cases of England and Holland, the main reason is convenience, not ideology.
There no reason to be a nice guy and help them with their propaganda goals.

I suspect that avoiding calling ISIS by its name has little to do with its propaganda goals. Most ISIS recruits do not watch the BBC. The real motivation is to convince the Western public that ISIS has nothing in common with Muslims in their countries.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 17 July 2015 08:39 AM
56%

For example al-jazeera reporters might watch BBC. And quite a few potential ISIS recruits watch their work.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 10 July 2015 03:18 PM
53%

The media doesn't have any super priviledged position to define what it is okay to call something. The politician having an opinion is a first such scruple. Iran still has a clear proper name in its official name. The islamic reference is somewhat looser as repeat mentions are more likely to just use "Iran" or "Iranians". "Iraq" would be confused with another entity and I guess "Lebanon" is already taken by a very small area?

Off course there is also a tendency to stick with the first thing that sees widespread use and it is kinda bad form to insist on specific vocabulary.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 10 July 2015 12:25 PM
64%

North Korea's official name isn't even North Korea. It's "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" there's North in the name.

stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 10 July 2015 03:32 PM
58%

I am assuming there is a missing negation in the second sentence.

While it is not North Koreas official name it is de facto the name used. Propaganda goal could be to shift people to use a different, more message supporting, name. It is still a name that is probably not picked for ideological reasons but a simple matter of practicality.

stars0
Reply


ChristianKl 11 July 2015 09:52 AM
64%

Yes, I forgot the negation and this forum lacks editing :(

stars0
Reply