• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Irrationality of Vigilant Wisdom?

Is it irrational/bigoted to have a slight wariness of Muslims?

  • Total voters
    16
Whoppletraps said:
Another terrorist attack in the US is more than likely going to be committed by a Muslim, so excuse me for not being politically correct because I don't want to get blown up by some jihadist.
Click to expand...
Has it ever occurred to you that people's arguments actually have merit and they aren't just "political correctness"?
 
theplaydrive said:
Has it ever occurred to you that people's arguments actually have merit and they aren't just "political correctness"?
Click to expand...

calling comments "politically correct" is just a way of disregarding and hand-waving away views one does not agree with.
 
Muslims died on 9/11's attack. So, it is not a war of entire muslim world.

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.

A muslim man with a big beard, wearing a bag into his shoulder will always look with suspicion by some americans but not all of them will see him like that.
I mostly believe that word "terrorism" is being used so much in USA that it had been attached to mentality of some people. If you have fear from muslims, it is just into your mentality imo.
9/11 is close to a terrorism attack, but it's even close to a foreign strike/attack far away from a terrorist attack.

Terrorism is used to make fear, besides the tools this world have to fight it, another way to fight against it is by your mentality and human feelings.

Albania's people are muslim but they are not a threat for USA (politicians by both sides are too much co-operative together). Why does an Albanian muslim isn't consider on same way with an Afghan muslim? I still count on my opinion that this has to do with the mentality.
 
Thunder said:
calling comments "politically correct" is just a way of disregarding and hand-waving away views one does not agree with.
Click to expand...
I agree. It's also a way to rationalize one's own disrespect.
 
Thunder said:
I humbly disagree.
Click to expand...

And I humbly submit that is your opinion, not a universal truth, and I disagree completely.

Everyone doesn't know everyone elses deed's, behaviors, or records. As such, it is every individuals choice in my opinion to decide, for themselves, what their default opinion of a person is going.

I said nothing about religion, you said that. A religion doens't make someone special, a religion doesn't make someone instantly trustable or non-trustable.

I understand YOU feel that everyone should be immedietely trusted 100% until given reason not to. I simply submit that such is not a right, but rather a bonus if someone feels that way. I believe its just as reasonable for someone to distrust every 100% until given reason to do otherwise...or to even simply be wary and neutral to someone until given reason to act otherwise.

Indeed, it appears you feel that people should not be free to choose what their default, standard, across the board reaction to a new individual is but rather that you believe they should be forced to trust everyone until that someone does something you deem as worthy of not being trusted.
 
Thunder said:
calling comments "politically correct" is just a way of disregarding and hand-waving away views one does not agree with.
Click to expand...

Generally it's used to dismiss an argument out of hand without actually using one's brain. There are cases of political correctness out there, but there's all too many cases where folks out there dismiss something as "political correctness" simply because they're intellectually lazy.
 
Thunder said:
or any other terrorist attacks committed by Muslims.

I am glad we agree.
Click to expand...

On that singular point, yes.

On just about everything else you've said, from your illogical world view in regards to trust (one in which if someone walked up to you and gvae you something to eat and said "try this it's good" you would be beholden to trust the mbecause they have the "right" to be trusted) to your irrational belief that it is not reasonable to not trust a group 100%.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Generally it's used to dismiss an argument out of hand without actually using one's brain. There are cases of political correctness out there, but there's all too many cases where folks out there dismiss something as "political correctness" simply because they're intellectually lazy.
Click to expand...

indeed, too often the accusation of "political correctness" is just used when someone is too fatigued, lazy, or disinterested to actually come up with a viable argument.
 
Zyphlin said:
...to your irrational belief that it is not reasonable to not trust a group 100%.
Click to expand...

I am talking about trusting individual members of a group, not the group itself.

how is such a belief "irrational"?

let's not go redefining terms, please.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
This isn't a discussion of Political Correctness, and the back handed attempts to bait through insults after my last warning isn't koesher. I suggest this kind of pointless, off topic post used only to try and degrade in a transparent ambiguous way stop now. LAST warning.
 
Thunder said:
I am talking about trusting individual members of a group, not the group itself.

how is such a belief "irrational"?

let's not go redefining terms, please.
Click to expand...

Its irrational to suggest that it is somehow wrong to not abjectly trust EVERY individual that makes up a group until given specific reason not to, because there is clear and unquestionable proof that there are untrustworthy individuals in this world. So its perfectly rational not to trust anyone 100% since there is a legitimate possability that they are not trustworthy.

It is irrational to distrust Muslims due to 9/11 and other terrorist attacks.

Additionally, it is irrational to trust any individual muslim 100% immedietely upon meeting. That is because its irrational to 100% trust ANY individual 100% immedietely upon meeting them. ANYONE is capable of doing something that is bad, so trusting them fully and completely in an absolute way until they actively do something bad is irrational.

As I said, to suggest that would be the case would mean that if someone walked up and asked you for $10,000 because they need it to save their life you would need to give it to them because you should be absolutely trusting that they're being honest. Or that if someone walked up and gave you something to eat and said "You have to taste this, it is the most amazing food ever" you would have to eat it because you should trust them completely and utterly. This is an entirely irrational view to hold.
 
Last edited:
I would say vigilence of Muslims is overkill. You're better off double checking both ways before you cross the road or stop talking on a cell phone. Your cell phone has a better chance of causing your death than a Muslim.
 
Absolutely not if you are talking about Shiites. It is the height of ignorance not to be wary of anyone who is a sworn enemy by edict.

Shiites can never be trusted because they are told from early on they may lie, cheat, steal, or do what ever they must to to put the infidels at ease so they may slit your throat when you least expect it.
 
iliveonramen said:
I would say vigilence of Muslims is overkill. You're better off double checking both ways before you cross the road or stop talking on a cell phone. Your cell phone has a better chance of causing your death than a Muslim.
Click to expand...

According to criminal statistics, you're much more likely to be a victim of a crime perpetrated by someone you know (friend, family member) than an average stranger. If we're talking about cold statistics, you're better served being paranoid about your family than about Muslims.
 
Zyphlin- you believe that folks that you have never met, are NOT deserving of the benefit of the doubt?

I sure do. And there is nothing irrational about such a stance.
 
Councilman said:
Absolutely not if you are talking about Shiites. It is the height of ignorance not to be wary of anyone who is a sworn enemy by edict.

Shiites can never be trusted because they are told from early on they may lie, cheat, steal, or do what ever they must to to put the infidels at ease so they may slit your throat when you least expect it.
Click to expand...

This is idiotic. I'm not sure why you keep on singling out Shi'ites. Osama bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda certainly aren't Shi'ites.
 
StillBallin75 said:
According to criminal statistics, you're much more likely to be a victim of a crime perpetrated by someone you know (friend, family member) than an average stranger. If we're talking about cold statistics, you're better served being paranoid about your family than about Muslims.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
Zyphlin said:
...So its perfectly rational not to trust anyone 100% since there is a legitimate possability that they are not trustworthy....
Click to expand...

I give folks the benefit of the doubt. If you want to call that "trusting someone 100%", which I believe is a mild strawman, go ahead.
 
Even in our life, we do not trust 100% everyone that surround us. We will always (pushed by our human behaviour) have a doubt on other's actions. There is nothing wrong with this.

I consider wrong, prejudging someone due to his gener, origin, background. It's like prejudging a criminal's son due to his father's actions. (people have been persecuted due to their biography in communism. because a family member was prisoned due to his political views, all family had to pay the consequences).
 
Thunder said:
Zyphlin- you believe that folks that you have never met, are NOT deserving of the benefit of the doubt?

I sure do. And there is nothing irrational about such a stance.
Click to expand...

I'm of the belief that people I've never met should be treated rather neutral in regards to trust. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt that they're trustworthy, but I don't also believe they're immedietely not trustworthy.

I'm always wary of my surroundings and people that are around me when I walk on a city street, am at a bar, or on a subway, etc. I try to sit near exits when possible, back against the wall when possible, etc. I don't flash my wallet around, I don't leave my phone on my hip, or anything else such as that...things I would do around people I trust. If a stranger tells me something I generally attempt to verify what they're saying is legitimate, with the more significant of a statement requiring even more proof. For example if a little girl, obviously weeping and upset, comes and tells me she needs help because her father is hurt and I see a man clutching his chest up ahead leaning on a wall, that will be enough evidence to give her a bit of trust in her story. On the flip side, if a stranger calls me and tells me they are a friend of my cousin and she got in trouble on spring break and is in jail and needs money wired to her, I would probably go out of my way to verify that as true before believing them and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

People who want my trust have to earn it. People who fully lose my trust need to do something to lose it. Everyone else is rather neutral to me, people I neither trust nor distrust but rather simply take on a case by case basis. Essentially, I distrust them unless I have reason through context or verification not to, with the amount of context or verification that is needed depending on the level of trust they're requiring. That is different than someone I just distrust wholey, as those type of people will generally not have my trust regardless o verification.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
1.5 billion Muslims and we should fear ALL of them?

that's just being paranoid, irrational, ignorant, and bigoted.
Click to expand...

LOL, you're seriously going to lecture someone else about negative stereotyping when you'd started how many "All conservatives are......" threads today?
 
I don't think any Muslim with bad intentions is going to get past airport security while they are allowed to go to second base with you. Also it seems stupid to go with the same plan twice; it's like robbing a bank, getting caught and then going back with the same exact plan to the same bank. I'm not suspicious of Muslims because I don't think they would choose to attack that way again and get past current security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom