Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Brilliant.It's criminal, sociology.
Harper said the truth. In the midst of a war is not the time to empathize with the enemy. There is plenty of time to construct excuses for them after we kill them.
Oooh. This could be the start of something big. Later today, I shall commit litigation.
When faced with evil, my inclination is to commit religion. But that's just me.
The word "though" must mean something different in Canada.
Yes! More who, what, when, where, and how (along with how do we prevent) and less why.The problem for a crisis-exploiting media is that the first questions might be quickly resolved, leaving only the least important one to be dwelt on by self-aggrandizing pundits for months.
Guess whose government is paying a sociologist $10 million to study the reasons that motivate terrorism?http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/04/26/feds-commit-sociology-to-learn-why-terrorists-act/
Borrowed (knowingly or unknowingly) from W.H. Auden's 1946 Harvard Phi Beta Kappa poem, "Under Which Lyre."Thou shalt not answer questionnaires Or quizzes upon World-Affairs, Nor with compliance Take any test. Thou shalt not sitWith statisticians nor commit A social science.
Apparently, the left, the media and the Teachers' Union are as stupid in Canada as they are in the U.S.
I almost fell for posting my personal thoughts, but then I caught myself. Anything I say will be construed by someone as "stupid", it's the popular thing, knee-jerk opposition, insult, and refusal to accept or hear a non-identical pov from a person from outside of one's clique, so there's really no point anymore. The only comment that's worth posting is "Keep up the good work, Anne."
The Godfather said...When faced with evil, my inclination is to commit religion. But that's just me.It's not just you. The terrorists had the same inclination.*ducks*
I can't believe they were Muslims.
They continue to commit fundamentalism.
"I think though, this is not a time to commit conflict theory sociology" would've been a far more apt and precise way to put it. All of the country's --if not the world's-- most pressing problems today were force-fed us by conflict theory sociologists. Not all of sociology is to blame. Studied from the functionalist point of view or from that of an interactionist sociology is an informative and illuminating academic field. Conflict theorists have basically hijacked everything, including social policy, particularly since FDR.
Translation: We must stop the process of applying political correctness against our enemies known and unknown. Political correctness is becoming the death of us and everyone knows it, but because it appears to be and looks so benign, no one cares. Well, at least those that know about it do.
The Blonde's favorite Prime Minister.And another reason why.Inga said...They continue to commit fundamentalism.When the She Devil of the SS finds her ass in a tree because Islamic fundamentalism, she may not be so "tolerant".
Anything I say will be construed by someone as "stupid", it's the popular thing, knee-jerk opposition, insult, and refusal to accept or hear a non-identical pov from a person from outside of one's clique, so there's really no point anymore. The only comment that's worth posting is "Keep up the good work, Anne (sic)."What a stupid comment. On many levels. So does that just make it arithmetically more stupid? Or does it take some kind of genius to post something so stupid?Or perhaps this is not a time to commit psychology?
To echo Calypso, "why" is only important if the "why" is something we can change, and are willing to change.Sadly, to all available evidence, the "why" of Islamist attacks boils down to "because you're not Muslim and you make Islam look bad by out-competing it".So unless the solution is a mass conversion to Islam and theocracy, deeper understanding of the "why" doesn't really matter.This truly is no time to commit sociology.
Syd B. said: I have a lot of Canadian friends. Unsusprisingly, as they're from BC, they're overwhelmingly reflexive leftists.And there's no difference at all between them and American leftists (and to be fair, the equivalent right-wingers) in their unfairness to the Other, willingness to believe anything that reinforces existing beliefs, and the other common failings of mankind.Some things never change.(Hell, I bet the same thing happens to my libertarian fellow-travelers on occasion. It's just so small a sample size I can't judge...)
They continue to commit fundamentalism.This is a standard liberal dodge. Their real enemy is conservatives, so when forced to criticize Mulims, liberals insist that the real problem is fundamentalism. Thus Islamic extremism becomes morally equivalent with Christian fundamentalism. Voila! Mission accomplished.Of course it's an ignorant and dishonest maneuver.The real problem with Muslims is not how they believe, but what they believe. Liberals are unwilling to come to grips with that.
@creeley23/Yes. It can be argued (accurately, imo) that the Jihadists are the only ones reading the Koran correctly, i.e., the problem is ISLAM per se and all it stands for. "Moderate Muslims" have to ignore or distort basic tenets of their faith in order to square it with modernity in the same way American "Cafeteria Catholics"ignore, "modify" theirs yet still consider themselves to be "good Catholics."
...the Jihadists are the only ones reading the Koran correctly,That's my impression.It explains why no Martin Luther or Martin Luther King emerge to reform Islam, and why so-called moderate Muslims only work to stop the extremists when the extremists jeopardize the moderates.It's like the KKK: only a very few participated in the lynchings. The rest of the Klanspeople, the "moderates," did not, but neither did they act to stop the lynchings because deep down they believed in white supremacy.
Radical Muslims want to kill all the Jews, moderate Muslims want the radicals to do it for them. -Ancient Chinese Secret
Post a Comment