France to Ban Showing the World Cup in Public for Fear of Terrorism

[A Very Serious Cat]

Poor fans aren't allowed any cultural enrichment

 

[all caps]

Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm told banning guns will stop murders. So banning soccer should do the same.

 

[bufetadanacara]

I bet they keep letting in more.

 

[Post 2 Decision]

Letting the terrorists win

 

[unimackpass]

This is why they should have voted for Le Pen.

It's better to live in constant fear than be labeled a racist. Extremely heroic.

 

[Halge]

It is 2018 and the nations of Europe cannot guarantee the safety of their people from foreign agents- even on home soil. When fascist parties come to power, don't ask why.

 

[spin]

If I understand you, you are in favor of this particular ban?

It's consistent to be in favor of this ban or others like it and also believe that there is a serious threat in France, no? Does the act of enforcing this ban not imply there is a problem to begin with? And if there is a problem, should it not be addressed? This is only a band-aid solution which does not address the cause.

What is the cause, in your estimation?

 

[Bald1]

Best. Idea. Ever.
The way to discourage improper behavior is to let it affect us and not try to correct it. It is known.

 

[dontsnitch]

What is the cause, in your estimation?

I should have italicized the word address. What I was getting at is that France is seemingly addressing a symptom while denying the problem. I'm not focusing on the "problem" as much as their reaction to it.

As for the problem itself, I think any answer I can give will fall short because there's a myriad of reasons for terrorism. The biggest issue I see is that the West as a whole wants to pretend there is not a problem within Islam. I think that's the biggest issue and it's more relevant than discussing the actual causes of terrorism.

To directly address your question, looking at this broadly in a Chomsky versus Harris dichotomy, I think they're both right. I think Imperialism does play a role and I think the religion itself also lends itself to theocratic thinking.

Love to hear your general thoughts.

 

[Islam Imamate]

France already surrendering...

 

[HereticBD]

Small price to pay for a multicultural utopia.

 

[TheGreatA]

If I understand you, you are in favor of this particular ban?

It's consistent to be in favor of this ban or others like it and also believe that there is a serious threat in France, no? Does the act of enforcing this ban not imply there is a problem to begin with? And if there is a problem, should it not be addressed? This is only a band-aid solution which does not address the cause.

Not in favour of it, but it's what's going to happen inevitably when people feel that their comfortable, safe way of life is being threatened.

When people become used to a norm, they will do anything to preserve that norm. Including the sacrifice of their freedoms. People who are used to danger, like the generations of past Western folk, felt less inclined to throw away their liberties because the state of danger was not uncommon to them. But the modern generations? They've never felt as exposed and as vulnerable as they have, in recent times, due to such attacks, even if the danger that they're exposed to might seem relatively insignificant, when put to a historical perspective.

There is no solution because the ship has already sailed, in France's case. Once an alcoholic ruins their lived by drinking, there's nothing left outside of temporary, band-aid solutions. The real solution, obviously, is that France shouldn't have allowed these problems to happen in the first place. But the situation is "unfixable" at this point. We have generations of people, unwilling to even entertain the notion of partaking in French society, who will only grow more hostile and alienated and radical in their thinking.

There is no easy solution to the problem, and "hard" solutions will not even be entertained by anyone who wishes to have a career in public office, unless they wish to deal with a shitstorm of the media, NGOs, lobbyists, "human rights organizations" etc. discrediting everything that they intend to do, to the point where the end result will be nothing more than a half-hearted compromise which does not even begin to address the half of it.

What we ought to do, is learn from our "alcoholic" brothers in France, and not allow the same thing to happen to the rest of the West. We've got to put the bottle aside and stop drinking. It is all that can be done.

 

[dontsnitch]

Not in favour of it, but it's what's going to happen inevitably when people feel that their comfortable, safe way of life is being threatened.

When people become used to a norm, they will do anything to preserve that norm. Including the sacrifice of their freedoms. People who are used to danger, like the generations of past Western folk, felt less inclined to throw away their liberties because the state of danger was not uncommon to them. But the modern generations? They've never felt as exposed and as vulnerable as they have, in recent times, due to such attacks.

There is no solution because the ship has already sailed, in France's case. Once an alcoholic ruins their lived by drinking, there's nothing left outside of temporary, band-aid solutions. The real solution, obviously, is that France shouldn't have allowed these problems to happen in the first place. But the situation is "unfixable" at this point.

What we ought to do, is learn from our "alcoholic" brothers in France, and not allow the same thing to happen to the rest of the West. We've got to put the bottle aside and stop drinking.

How can one "stop drinking" and remain liberal? For instance, a Muslilm ban would work in theory, but it doesn't strike me as especially liberal. That's the one problem with live and let live, you may end up welcoming people who oppose the very idea of liberty, and when you welcome enough of these people, they can simply reject liberalism and instill their own style of government, or at the very least change the current liberal mores.

 

[TheGreatA]

How can one "stop drinking" and remain liberal? For instance, a Muslilm ban would work in theory, but it doesn't strike me as especially liberal. That's the one problem with live and let live, you may end up welcoming people who oppose the very idea of liberty, and when you welcome enough of these people, they can simply reject liberalism and instill their own style of government, or at the very least change the current liberal mores.

Perhaps the solution is to not remain "liberal", atleast in the modern sense, if the end game of being a modern liberal is to actually lose liberty.

 

[dontsnitch]

Perhaps the solution is to not remain "liberal", atleast in the modern sense, if the end game of being a modern liberal is to actually lose liberty.

I personally can't do that, though. Perhaps individual philosophy doesn't translate well into governing, I don't know, but I can't justify the means to an end.

 

[therealdope]

Makes a lot of sense to me. I'm told banning guns will stop murders. So banning soccer should do the same.

Jay Leno had a hilarious joke in the 80s when the UK was looking at banning the second Rambo movie because of "gratuitous american style violence".

His joke was:

the British culture minister came out today with a statement saying that the new Rambo movie might be banned in England because they just can't comprehend the gratuitous American style violence.

Ya well, maybe next time we'll put Rambo in a soccer jersey and you'll understand it a little better.

 

[TheGreatA]

I personally can't do that, though. Perhaps individual philosophy doesn't translate well into governing, I don't know, but I can't justify the means to an end.

I don't think you need a Muslim ban. I think you need a ban on people who've already violated the laws of your country by illegally tress-passing, and not giving a damn about the legal standards of citizenship that have been set for centuries. We live in the most technologically advanced era of all, where all information can be made readily available, so there is no excuse for us to allow people in, undocumented, no passports, no background checks, nothing, as countries like France have.

I don't let uninvited guests into my house. I'd be a hypocrite to say that I should let uninvited guests into my country.

If that offends some people's liberal sentiments, then it is too bad. But none of these "liberal" people sleep with their front door unlocked. The realities of what it takes to uphold a stable civilization, have been acknowledged for centuries. It takes men that are bold, who stand firm behind their convictions, and set standards of conduct that will not be compromised under the threat of violence.

The meek are bound to lose their liberty.

 

[Lord Coke]

Ya the Russians will take care of these guys

 

[dontsnitch]

I don't think you need a Muslim ban. I think you need a ban on people who've already violated the laws of your country by illegally tress-passing, and not giving a damn about the legal standards of citizenship that have been set for centuries. We live in the most technologically advanced era of all, where all information can be made readily available, so there is no excuse for us to allow people in, undocumented, no passports, no background checks, nothing, as countries like France have.

I don't let uninvited guests into my house. I'd be a hypocrite to say that I should let uninvited guests into my country.

If that offends some people's liberal sentiments, then it is too bad. But none of these "liberal" people sleep with their front door unlocked. The realities of what it takes to uphold a stable civilization, have been acknowledged for centuries. It takes men that are bold, who stand firm behind their convictions, and set standards of conduct that will not be compromised under the threat of violence.

Well said, I think this would solve a lot of problems, but there seems to be a concerted effort to not do this. Though the tide seems to be changing...

 

[spin]

I should have italicized the word address. What I was getting at is that France is seemingly addressing a symptom while denying the problem. I'm not focusing on the "problem" as much as their reaction to it.

As for the problem itself, I think any answer I can give will fall short because there's a myriad of reasons for terrorism. The biggest issue I see is that the West as a whole wants to pretend there is not a problem within Islam. I think that's the biggest issue and it's more relevant than discussing the actual causes of terrorism.

To directly address your question, looking at this broadly in a Chomsky versus Harris dichotomy, I think they're both right. I think Imperialism does play a role and I think the religion itself also lends itself to theocratic thinking.

Love to hear your general thoughts.

Gemerald thoughts are exactly what i have to give. I couldn't word it towards your point, so I asked a question to try and help that. But I'll just go general.

Here in America, we have a mass murderer problem. Some with Islamic doctrine motivations, lately we have no idea the motivations.

We are unfortunately talking about it as a gun problem.


In places like France, they have a mass murderer, terrorist problem.

for basically all of them this time the motivations are Islamic doctrine. But, saying it is an Islam problem, again leads addressing the wrong thing.