Discussing Precautionary Debating: United States vs. Finland

  • News
  • Thread starter jostpuur
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation is about a person's thoughts on terrorism, and how some people believe that only Muslims are terrorists. There is some debate among the people in the conversation, as to whether or not this is true. The person who posted the conversation believes that this is not the case, and that there are other people who give their lives for their beliefs.
  • #1
jostpuur
2,116
19
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=182492

When I look at this:

kasse said:
"Can you imagine one thing: Somebody will/or trying to kill your "GOD" who you trust forever, then what you will do then?"

My point exactly! Their religion and God is holy to them, even if it doesn't exist! Many of them are filled with hate, but I doubt they would commit suicide if they weren't also convinced that they'll get paid in Paradice for doing these horrible things.

I cannot see anything here, that would indicate kasse believing the muslims being the only terrorists. Still, the responses to kasse where these:

evo said:
Are you are inferring that only Muslims are terrorists? If so, there is no need to continue this thread.

DaveC426913 said:
Are you suggesting Muslims are the only ones who give their lives for their beliefs?

Maybe you'd better retreat and regroup and pose your question more carefully.

kasse responded "I'm not!" very clearly, and continued

kasse said:
But certainly more than other religious people. Giving ones life for ones blind beliefs is not a good thing, btw.

By the way, I agree with you. There are short of ateists among terrorists. I think religion and blind belief that is the main reason why there is terrorism and wars in todays world.

I don't respect religious beliefs. But that doesn't mean I don't respect religious people.

To me these look quite reasonable opinions, presented appropriately. The response to kasse was this:

DaveC426913 said:
You have so many presuppositions and personal biases that it's difficult to call this a discussion. It's really you asserting your personal (and, arguably, blind) beliefs.

Math Is Hard said:
This thread appears to have been created for targeting a specific religion for criticism rather than discussing the roots of terrorism generally.

And locking.

This looks like some kind of precautionary debating. If you have a reason to assume, that the opponent could try to say something bad, accuse him of it and make him silent, before he actually says it.

Are you guys in United States? I'm not. I have a wild guess for all this. You have probably more experience with propaganda that attempts to make all muslism look dangerous group of people, than I have (I'm in Finland, far away from the war against terror), so could this be the reason why kasse's posts appeared different to you than they appeared to me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
americans are often touchy when it comes to issues involving race or faith, or any other form of bias.

eg. "are you a racist?! i hate racists and your baned for hating someone for reasons other then them being an a--hole!". happens all the time with americans on the internet.
 
  • #3
jostpuur, you didn't see the previous thread by the OP which was deleted. So, in the future if you don't understand an action feel free to pm the mentor and ask.
 

Related to Discussing Precautionary Debating: United States vs. Finland

What is precautionary debating?

Precautionary debating is a method of decision-making used when there is scientific uncertainty about a particular issue. It involves taking preventive action to minimize potential harm, even in the absence of conclusive evidence.

What is the difference between precautionary debating in the United States and Finland?

The main difference between precautionary debating in the United States and Finland is the level of emphasis placed on precaution. In the United States, precaution is often seen as a last resort and is only implemented when there is strong evidence of potential harm. In Finland, precaution is seen as a primary approach and is used even in cases of uncertain or potential harm.

How does the use of precautionary debating affect policy-making in the United States and Finland?

In the United States, the use of precautionary debating can lead to slower policy-making processes and may require more evidence to support precautionary measures. In Finland, precautionary debating is often used to justify more proactive and precautionary policies, even in the absence of strong evidence. This can lead to faster policy-making and potentially more protective measures.

What are some examples of precautionary debating in the United States and Finland?

In the United States, precautionary debating has been used in debates about climate change, genetically modified organisms, and chemical regulation. In Finland, precautionary debating has been used in debates about nuclear power, pesticide use, and air pollution.

What are some potential criticisms of using precautionary debating in decision-making?

Some potential criticisms of using precautionary debating include the potential for excessive regulation and the possibility of hindering innovation. Additionally, precautionary measures may be costly and may impose burdens on certain industries or individuals. There is also the risk of making decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate information.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
3
Replies
74
Views
9K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
709
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
49
Views
16K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
4K
Back
Top