dimreepr

Because it’s not a “small sausage”, but hey, anything you serve with custard can only be good.

A great English dessert akin to “spotted dick” just not a pudding.

No, but I do love rhubarb crumble. I am given to understand, in the sheds described, you can actually hear the rhubarb growing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhubarb_Triangle

If you want your rhubarb to grow in extremis; cover it and deny it daylight.

It seems to me that just being is what almost all animals do when they lack external influence/stimuli, in other words they are content. When one is content one cares not for what comes after; because now is all that counts “yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery but today is a gift”.

The evidence I sought from you, given your OP and numerous similar replies, is how it affects ISIS in terms of the number of defections? How can you conclude ‘I don’t care’ from my question? It seems to me you’re simply using it to “cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war”. Really?

Sorry, that was meant to read “it establishes the parameters of sanity” (since rectified) but either way the implication is clear since Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi clearly displays “a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioural patterns.”

He did: “There must be some sane ground between Richard Dawkins and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi” Edit/ It doesn’t just imply insanity; it establishes the parameters of sanity.

It’s a question of understanding, IMO, and that spark of understanding in the right person (someone in the right place at the right time) is rare. He/she would understand the value of forgiveness, the futility of revenge and be charismatic and wise enough to convey that message to the faithful/people. Specifically, there is no way to know what leads to such understanding in anyone; for me it was when my dog was expecting a treat for doing something I hadn’t asked for, it just clicked; but I’m not clever enough to convey my understanding to others and I’m definitely not in the right place.

I’m struggling to understand why it matters whether or not these, as yet, mythical creatures exist or not. If they don’t exist, so what? There is so much to wonder at in the world we know about, to waste energy wondering at what may be. If they do exist; all I can hope is we never find them. Given our track record, we’re far more likely to have a catastrophic effect than a positive one.

I agree with your position on this topic, as my posts in both threads will testify, but in fairness we have no real idea what the recent interventions, by the allies, will have in the long term; it’s entirely plausible that my suggestion, of a peace seeking leader to emerge from the aftermath of this current skirmish.

I really don’t understand how you can be so sure (bolded mine)? You have absolutely no evidence to support your assertion. In England, those that have returned from ISIS haven’t done so through duress; in fact they seem determined to a, recruit more fighters or b, commit/plan atrocities on home soil, probably both. Why do you care? How?

You appreciate the speeds even more when you’ve ridden those same roads, like a lunatic, and still fail to even come close to the times set by the pros.

This is not the appropriate way to apply Occams Razor to this question How can Occams Razor possibly apply to the propensity of people seeing what they expect/want to see or to this question? Edit/ There have been many studies done on how humans see the world; the mind fills in the gaps, that the eye’s miss with guess’s based on what it expects to see.

Commander, you may want to stop digging, the holes getting rather deep.

Very good question, on the one hand you can’t just let them take/do what they like, but equally, history has shown that too much force will, most likely, create greater opposition. The people that have joined ISIS or just support them are so frustrated and angry at the west Then anything we do in retaliation will simply serve to strengthen those feelings. The death of Abu Bakr al-Baghadi may provide the opportunity to start a dialog (it seems unlikely he would under any circumstance). Destroying ISIS would just drive more people to feel frustrated and angry at the west and drive the remains of ISIS underground; the outcome of which may have an even more destructive outcome. Conversely, destroying ISIS may lead to the emergence of the type of man necessary to bring about a lasting peace; I think the current line is about right TBH, but the solution can only from communication.

You stated “and you are an authority on what it takes to change an ISIS recruit’s mind.” Which, is what I clearly quoted and replied to; so you compound the original fallacy with another; not great debating tactics. I never made the claim (bolded), I said the chances are minimal, so yet another fallacy. I think I’ll decide how I argue my case, but thank you for outlining some of the reasons why your approach is unlikely to work. I know it will take more than the length of a DVD; that they will probably never see anyway. Besides there are doubts that de-programming even works effectively. “Professor of psychiatry Saul Levine suggests that it is doubtful that deprogramming helps many people and goes on to say that it actually causes harm to the victim by very nature of the deprogramming. For deprogramming to work, the victim must be convinced that they joined a religious group against their will. They then must renounce responsibility and accept that in some mysterious way that their minds were controlled. It is Levine's professional opinion that once deprogrammed, a person would never be certain that they were really doing what they want. He states that deprogramming destroys a person's identity and is likely to create permanent anxiety about freedom of choice and leave the deprogrammed subject dependent upon the guidance and advice of others. "Fundamentally deprogramming denies choice and creates dependency. It robs people of their sense of responsibility. Instead of encouraging people to accept that they made a mistake, it encourages people to deny their actions and blame others.”

Let’s not start down the logical fallacy path just stick to the topic. OK wrong choice of words, it should read “the good guys HAVE been just as cruel”. I provided a link to back my claim; perhaps you’d like to back this supposition/guess.

The chances of a DVD (which is of little more value than a pamphlet) changing the minds of anyone who hasn’t already decided to leave is minimal; after all it takes weeks to de-program the converted, what chance does a DVD/pamphlet really have. As I tried to imply this isn’t a movie; the good guys can be just as cruel.

You’ve been watching the big bang theory; the trick is to understand why.

It’s a little naive to think you can win over people, who have entrenched views or who know their right, however correct the argument. It’s very naive to think this problem is as simplistic as the good guys verses the bad guys; unless you think its OK for the good guys to imprison without trial and torture.

Who is it you think is more delusional? This applies, equally, to both.

Yet the basic tenant of almost all religions is, 'mankind is special' in one way or another. Its science that suggests mankind is insignificant in comparison to the universe.

How did you manage to deduce that from my post? Who are the good guys? Besides, ‘better propaganda’ doesn’t equate to ‘better argument’. It doesn’t matter what I believe but to those that believe western ideals are poison, of course their freedom fighters. Isn’t that just the antipode of programmed?