How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

If you have a question for members of the Zombie Squad bring it over here.

If this is a question specifically for an official authorized representative of Zombie Squad, Inc. your best bet will be to e-mail service@zombiehunters.org

Moderator: ZS Global Moderators

User avatar
Hollis
* * *
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Resident Evil, Fido, 28 days later, Night of the Living Dead,
Location: Pacific Northwet/Ecotopia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Hollis » Fri May 22, 2015 9:44 pm

buck85 wrote:It it is not what is said but how it is said.

Well said.
Zombies don't ski.

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sat May 23, 2015 4:39 am

Hollis wrote:
buck85 wrote:It it is not what is said but how it is said.

Well said.
So content doesn't count, just presentation? :clownshoes:
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
procyon
* * * * *
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat May 18, 2013 5:56 am
Location: Iowa, USA

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by procyon » Sat May 23, 2015 5:09 am

LowKey wrote:
Hollis wrote:
buck85 wrote:It it is not what is said but how it is said.

Well said.
So content doesn't count, just presentation? :clownshoes:
You don't watch much TV, do you...
:lol:
:wink:

Boy, I really need to go find some more coffee.
... I will show you fear in a handful of dust...

User avatar
the_alias
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5951
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:51 pm
Location: Not Here.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by the_alias » Sat May 23, 2015 8:12 pm

NamelessStain wrote:
the_alias wrote: I think it important to understand how these people think from a perspective of why the West is failing to integrate them and so many young men and women born in the West are making a choice to join groups like ISIS but ZS just isn't really the place.
So of course it's society's fault. This supports "honor killings" of which the West is so fond. I think you need to do more research on the cultural differences before blaming the West. Also blaming the West is against the rules just like it is to blame any other group.
:roll:
If you want to know my opinions PM me.

But I doubt you do, you just wanted to take a swipe. Yawn.
Man is a beast of prey

User avatar
Hollis
* * *
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Resident Evil, Fido, 28 days later, Night of the Living Dead,
Location: Pacific Northwet/Ecotopia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Hollis » Sun May 24, 2015 12:57 pm

LowKey wrote:
Hollis wrote:
buck85 wrote:It it is not what is said but how it is said.

Well said.
So content doesn't count, just presentation? :clownshoes:

A reply might be, it is like the art of diplomacy. "It is telling someone to go to hell where they look forward to the journey." The content is there and it is well stated and not lost in a diatribe of below:

Or are you saying, content doesn't matter unless you it is laced with ignorance, insults, rants, rages, bigotry etc?
Zombies don't ski.

LowKey
* * * * *
Posts: 4639
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:32 am
Favorite Zombie Movies: Night of the Dead (original and remake)
Dawn of the Dead (original and remake)
Land of the Dead
Diary of the Dead
28 Days
28 Weeks
Resident Evil
Shawn of the Dead
Night of the Comet (cheese squared!)
Dead Alive (cheese cubed!!)
Location: In the Middle East, for my sins.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by LowKey » Sun May 24, 2015 1:49 pm

Hollis wrote:
LowKey wrote:
Hollis wrote:
buck85 wrote:It it is not what is said but how it is said.

Well said.
So content doesn't count, just presentation? :clownshoes:

A reply might be, it is like the art of diplomacy. "It is telling someone to go to hell where they look forward to the journey." The content is there and it is well stated and not lost in a diatribe of below:

Or are you saying, content doesn't matter unless you it is laced with ignorance, insults, rants, rages, bigotry etc?
The first part of your post illustrates the problem perfectly; telling someone to go to hell is telling them to go to hell no matter how diplomatic it may be phrased, Likewise telling them to go to hell in the most course and inflammatory manner possible is likewise still telling them to go to hell.
In either case, you've told someone to go to hell. The only difference is in if they have the wit to see past the verbiage in which you've gift wrapped the message. Or more crudely put, shit gilded in gold leaf is still shit.
The content matters far more than the presentation, or should to any rational person. In the age old argument of style over substance, I'll take substance any day...no matter how uncouth it may be.

Should we all strive to avoid inflaming things? Absolutely.
Should we do so at the expense of not being truthful? Absolutely not.
If you start pushing for the tone to be more important than the information itself then you've given up on trying to discuss issues.

Truth from the most foul mouthed person alive is still truth.
Sweet, palatable lies from the most sophisticated and cosmopolitan of people alive is still a lie.
So while presentation may make a given pill easier to swallow, sugar coated BS is BS and a bitter pill of legitimate medicine no matter how bitter and unpalatable is still medicine.

So while we should all strive to be as non-inflammatory as possible, we shouldn't sacrifice facts (or truth) in favor of palatability.
“Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” Robert A. Heinlein

hondo
* *
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:16 am
Location: Vermont

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by hondo » Sun May 24, 2015 5:58 pm

the_alias wrote:


I think it important to understand how these people think from a perspective of why the West is failing to integrate them and so many young men and women born in the West are making a choice to join groups like ISIS but ZS just isn't really the place.

ZS is the place to get help on a better plan for what happens when any crazy goes crazy and tries to hurt people.

Well West is large place without going in discussion on this forum it partially result of self-imposed isolation and European way of thinking that divide people on us and them and them is anybody who is not us, while US has "melting pot" idea.

I think that ZS does not want some discussion about specific groups because such discussions tend to turn into bashing parties.
There is 1.6 billion Muslims in the world at same time there is some 50-100 of the terrorist who happen to be Muslims and some number of those who are supportive but for average Muslim radical Islamist is the biggest threat.

As far as "honor killings" they are not part of Islam instead they are part of a pre-Islamic customs in certain parts of the world, where people from such culture happen to convert to Islam while holding old customs.

It is like Old Testament teaching about taking our unruly kids to the edge of the town and stoning them to death.

P.S. Idea that some LEO is going to jeopardize his or her job disclosing intel to somebody is unrealistic ( family as in wife, kids, parents, ) are given a code word that means get out of the Dodge and ask me no questions.

User avatar
Hollis
* * *
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:39 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Resident Evil, Fido, 28 days later, Night of the Living Dead,
Location: Pacific Northwet/Ecotopia

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Hollis » Sun May 24, 2015 10:31 pm

LowKey wrote: The first part of your post illustrates the problem perfectly; telling someone to go to hell is telling them to go to hell no matter how diplomatic it may be phrased, Likewise telling them to go to hell in the most course and inflammatory manner possible is likewise still telling them to go to hell.
In either case, you've told someone to go to hell. The only difference is in if they have the wit to see past the verbiage in which you've gift wrapped the message. Or more crudely put, shit gilded in gold leaf is still shit.
The content matters far more than the presentation, or should to any rational person. In the age old argument of style over substance, I'll take substance any day...no matter how uncouth it may be.

Should we all strive to avoid inflaming things? Absolutely.
Should we do so at the expense of not being truthful? Absolutely not.
If you start pushing for the tone to be more important than the information itself then you've given up on trying to discuss issues.

Truth from the most foul mouthed person alive is still truth.
Sweet, palatable lies from the most sophisticated and cosmopolitan of people alive is still a lie.
So while presentation may make a given pill easier to swallow, sugar coated BS is BS and a bitter pill of legitimate medicine no matter how bitter and unpalatable is still medicine.

So while we should all strive to be as non-inflammatory as possible, we shouldn't sacrifice facts (or truth) in favor of palatability.

You mentioned content............. Then you mention sugar coated BS, what content are you talking about. IMHO, the truth ( your word) is lost in the rant or rage or "sugar coated BS" is the same.

The truth from a foul mouth person is what, the profanity (foul mouth) or the thing they are coating? You condemn the sugar coating and support the foul coating. I don't see a difference. inflammatory or noninflammatory coating is the same.
Zombies don't ski.

Doctorr Fabulous
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
Posts: 12210
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:06 pm
Favorite Zombie Movies: Evil Dead, Zombieland, 28 Days/Weeks Later

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by Doctorr Fabulous » Sun May 24, 2015 11:25 pm

Hollis wrote:
LowKey wrote: The first part of your post illustrates the problem perfectly; telling someone to go to hell is telling them to go to hell no matter how diplomatic it may be phrased, Likewise telling them to go to hell in the most course and inflammatory manner possible is likewise still telling them to go to hell.
In either case, you've told someone to go to hell. The only difference is in if they have the wit to see past the verbiage in which you've gift wrapped the message. Or more crudely put, shit gilded in gold leaf is still shit.
The content matters far more than the presentation, or should to any rational person. In the age old argument of style over substance, I'll take substance any day...no matter how uncouth it may be.

Should we all strive to avoid inflaming things? Absolutely.
Should we do so at the expense of not being truthful? Absolutely not.
If you start pushing for the tone to be more important than the information itself then you've given up on trying to discuss issues.

Truth from the most foul mouthed person alive is still truth.
Sweet, palatable lies from the most sophisticated and cosmopolitan of people alive is still a lie.
So while presentation may make a given pill easier to swallow, sugar coated BS is BS and a bitter pill of legitimate medicine no matter how bitter and unpalatable is still medicine.

So while we should all strive to be as non-inflammatory as possible, we shouldn't sacrifice facts (or truth) in favor of palatability.

You mentioned content............. Then you mention sugar coated BS, what content are you talking about. IMHO, the truth ( your word) is lost in the rant or rage or "sugar coated BS" is the same.

The truth from a foul mouth person is what, the profanity (foul mouth) or the thing they are coating? You condemn the sugar coating and support the foul coating. I don't see a difference. inflammatory or noninflammatory coating is the same.
Maybe I'm still a bit sleepy, it seems like you're trying to say that delivery is as important as the message? If so I agree completely. If the message is lost in poor communication, of the attempt at communication distracts from the message, then the communicator has failed. If I want to sell my companies services to a nunnery but show up with strippers tryign to entertain the Mother Superior when I make my pitch, my message is not going to get across. I may well be the best priced company for the job, but the way I tried to communicate my message was not tailored well to my audience. Similarly, if I'm trying to advertise my services as a pimp to the head of a shelter for recovering sex workers, it doesn't matter how true I think my claims to being the best pimp in the area are, I haven't ensured that my message is appropriate to the listener.

If someone keeps telling you "I don't care, we're not going to have that discussion here" it's time to take the message elsewhere, no matter how true you think it is.
Opinions subject to change in light of new information.
Image
http://i.imgur.com/wG6ZMjE.jpg

User avatar
the_alias
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
Posts: 5951
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:51 pm
Location: Not Here.

Re: How to discuss terrorism without breaking Rule #7?

Post by the_alias » Mon May 25, 2015 7:54 pm

This thread was answered on page 1 and other mods agree with me that it has run it's course, it will remain locked.

Especially when you get posts like the one hondo made. Trying to moderate here effectively at times is like speaking to rocks.

To summarize you can discuss terrorism here without breaking rule #7 in the same way people have been able to discuss the Debt crisis/financial downturn.
Man is a beast of prey

Locked

Return to “Ask ZS”