Dangerous Comics

[Yeahduff]

Say what you will about Jack Chick, at least he won't slice your head off if you draw a naughty picture of Jesus.

Yeah, but he'll very confidently tell you you'll burn in hell for all eternity and the thought will comfort him. I guess that make Chick a better person. Anyway, if you did that, say, 618 years ago, you actually might expect a Chick equivalent to kill you in a brutal and creative manner.

Words certainly can be dangerous, and so can comics. All of us in one way or another are products of our environments, which includes the words we've read and the images we're subjected to. In modern Western society, extremism is generally taken with little seriousness. We're all too comfortable to get so caught up in our ideas that we'll take up arms to defend them. But that wasn't always the case, and certainly is not the case elsewhere. Late summer Newsweek reported that US prison guards at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Quran down the toilet. Violent protests soon followed. This wasn't a public action that the guards allegedly did, it was only something that was reported on later, it was words in a magazine and the idea they conveyed, that moved these people to violence.

[RemusShepherd]

Anywho . . . words and ideas are not, in and of themselves, dangerous. Mein Kampf can't force people who read it to become nazis. Instructions on how to build a pipe bomb can't convince someone to start building, throwing, and exploding pipe bombs. People can hold these ideas and bits of knowledge quite safely in their heads without acting upon them, rendering them impotent.

It takes a will and desire to be destructive. And people who have that will and desire are already dangerous in some form or another. The ideas and knowledge merely give them a means, and they can and will find a means elsewhere or on their own if they have enough determination to do so.

I think you're underestimating the power of persuasion. Mein Kampf convinced a lot of people that being a nazi was the morally correct thing to do. *That* is the dangerous part of the idea. Dry, academic texts on how to build a pipebomb are not dangerous, but witty, persuasive stories like Fight Club can both tell people how to make bombs and convince them that blowing buildings up is the only way to set yourself free.

[Jim North]

I think y'all are underestimating free will. Nothing can force you to think anything. Words do not have some inherent magical ability to make someone think a certain way. If they don't want to think that way, then they're not going to. People who look at Kampf or Fight Club and use them as models for their behavior either have tendancies towards that kind of behavior already or have extremely mercurial personalities, and these are the dangerous things.

Movies, books, vidgames, rap music . . . none of these things hurt people. The people who use these things as excuses for their action do.

[RemusShepherd]

I think y'all are underestimating free will. Nothing can force you to think anything. Words do not have some inherent magical ability to make someone think a certain way. If they don't want to think that way, then they're not going to.

I'll bring out the big gun example, then -- the Bible. Other good examples are Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and Common Sense by Thomas Paine. All these works convinced people that the words within were truth and that they needed to be acted upon. People can be forced (or fooled, if you like -- I prefer 'convinced') into thinking in certain ways.

Movies, books, vidgames, rap music . . . none of these things hurt people. The people who use these things as excuses for their action do.

I agree with you that ultimately the responsibility lies with the person who actively commits the crime.

But words can be used to sway people en masse. If they sway people into dangerous acts, then those were dangerous words. I don't think we should outlaw dangerous words -- we'd be outlawing ideas, and that is not a healthy thing for a society to do. But we need to recognize that some ideas *are* dangerous.

[ManyWorlds]

Ideas can be dangerous, true, but only when they're acted upon.

And to be slightly more on-topic, if someone gets convinced to be, say, a Nazi by a comic book, he or she was probably already a xenophobic idiot.

[Wishmaster]

Ideas can be dangerous, true, but only when they're acted upon.

The idea that your government is just and fair and doing the right thing, which requires no action on the thinker's part, can be dangerous if their government isn't just or fair or doing the right thing. That's a true for any nationin any time period as it ever was for Nazi Germany. Sometimes inaction is a form of action.

[McDuffies]

I think y'all are underestimating free will. Nothing can force you to think anything. Words do not have some inherent magical ability to make someone think a certain way. If they don't want to think that way, then they're not going to. People who look at Kampf or Fight Club and use them as models for their behavior either have tendancies towards that kind of behavior already or have extremely mercurial personalities, and these are the dangerous things.

Movies, books, vidgames, rap music . . . none of these things hurt people. The people who use these things as excuses for their action do.

Um... if I read in my college book that this electronics element works a certain way, I'll start to believe that it does, because I have no reason not to believe to such book. Rather rough example, but words not only have that magic ability, it's one of their major uses. And then, if you think a certain way, words may not convince you to think otherwise, but what if you don't think about some subject at all?
Probably the most important term of pre-election politics is indecisive majority. Which means, for every men who goes to elections knowing who he's going to vote for, come several people who don't have the slightest idea. Every political marketing is aimed not at people who already have formed opinion, but at those who don't, who are indecisive, guillible. Transfer that to just any kind of marketing, whether it is intentional (like Jack Chick) or unintentional (like some films, I won't use Fight Club on purpose, I might just use "Death wish" instead).
Jack Chick's pamphlets don't work on anyone who already has formed opinion toward religion. Because they're so blatantly obvious, they won't have influence on anyone with common sence either. But there are a lot of people who don't have either, many people just waiting for someone to offer them wrong ideas.
But I've seen (we all did actually) religious fanatics who offered propaganda in form that was much less blatant but equally outrageous in it's fundamentalism as Jack Chick's. Now that is propaganda that is going to work on much more people. Sometimes even very intellignet people. Because being intelligent is not the same as having a view of the world formed.
You may claim that they had those ideas in them before and were just waiting for an oportunity, excuse, but you can't really know that, you can just presume. Frankly, I believe that both cases work, depending on a person. There are, indeed, people who filter things they receive and just accept things that conform to their vision of the world. There are also people who can even be in their late years, but are still in some ways blank page, waiting for the strongest propaganda or perhaps influence by their friends to write something in.
Mein Kampf, dangerous or not, is undeniably immoral book. If the suggestion that books only trigger something that's already in you, then it means that majority of German (and Austrian and Italian) nation were subliminally fascists, and just waited for that to show. I find it hard to believe. I'd rather believe in the concept of guillible majority. Or perhaps that such people have many triggers, sometimes even oposite, and that it's up to a strong propaganda to trigger some of those triggers or they might remain untriggered forever.
In any case, I've seen people turning their story from one extreme to another. A lot of examples turning from extreme communists to extreme nationalists and believers. The only thing that was constant with them was that they were turning to idea that was politically correct at the moment and that, accepting the idea once, they'd became better Christians than Pope. It's simply the guillible personality, the need to hold on to some idea and oportunism. If you want to call the oportunism an idea that is waiting to get it's form in some of outter ideas, you can but I think it's quite a stretch.

[Jim North]

All these works convinced people that the words within were truth and that they needed to be acted upon. People can be forced (or fooled, if you like -- I prefer 'convinced') into thinking in certain ways.

But words can be used to sway people en masse. If they sway people into dangerous acts, then those were dangerous words.

Forced is not the same thing as fooled, convinced, or swayed. The first indicates that a person has absolutely no choice in the matter. The second indicates that while they had a choice, they are operating under false assumption. And the last two mean that they have actively decided to switch sides on a matter. Fooled, convinced and swayed are matters of free will whereas forced is not.

Sure, those books may have made people change their ideas about things, but they had to actually decide to change those ideas. People don't just read the Bible and go "OMG, CAN'T RESIST, MUST BECOME CHRISTIAN AGAINST OWN WILL". There are plenty of people who have read the Bible, have read Mein Kampf, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it hasn't changed their minds a bit. The ideas are just ideas . . . they're nothing until some fucktard idiot picks them and starts brandishing them like a weapon. It's not the idea that needs to be dealt with, it's the person.

Um... if I read in my college book that this electronics element works a certain way, I'll start to believe that it does, because I have no reason not to believe to such book.

If you pick up Mein Kampf and become a Nazi just because you don't know any better, then your ignorance is dangerous, not Nazism itself. You are the one still responsible.

If you believe everything you read, then you're highly irresponsible and your actions are still your own fault.

If you get yourself zapped because you fiddled with some electronics element incorrectly due to a erroneous college book entry, then it's the fault of the people at the publishing company because they didn't make sure every damn little thing in their books was right.

Rather rough example, but words not only have that magic ability, it's one of their major uses.

If words actually did have this magic ability, I'd just use it to make you all stop debating the point and agree with me. But they don't, so I suppose I have to just keep on trying to get you to change your minds of your own free will.

And then, if you think a certain way, words may not convince you to think otherwise, but what if you don't think about some subject at all?

It doesn't change anything. If you have zero opinion about something beforehand and then are presented with a choice between two related options, you still have to make the choice. You may take in ideas and words and information regarding these two choices and use those ideas et al to make your decision, but what that decision actually ends up being is still entirely dependant on you making it. The ideas can help, but they can't make the choice for you. Ideas do not elect politicians into office. People do.

You may claim that they had those ideas in them before and were just waiting for an oportunity, excuse, but you can't really know that, you can just presume.

It's inconsequential whether they had those ideas in them before or not. As I have already stated, both ignorance and those with mercurial personalities are dangerous. If you change your mind with every single new idea that comes your way, then you are a horribly unpredictable and therefore dangerous person, no matter what those ideas may be. If you're ignorant and just pick up the first idea that comes along without considering other possibilities, then you are dangerous.

Mein Kampf, dangerous or not, is undeniably immoral book. If the suggestion that books only trigger something that's already in you, then it means that majority of German (and Austrian and Italian) nation were subliminally fascists, and just waited for that to show. I find it hard to believe.

So do I, which is why I didn't say that.

[McDuffies]

If you pick up Mein Kampf and become a Nazi just because you don't know any better, then your ignorance is dangerous, not Nazism itself. You are the one still responsible.

If you believe everything you read, then you're highly irresponsible and your actions are still your own fault.

Well what if the person is mentally ill? Mentally ill people usually aren't held responsible for their actions.
In any case, I don't think that you can say that it's exclusively person's fault. Fault has to be shared between that person, his enviroment that reacted or didn't react to his state, and the creator, depending on case. OF course you can't blame Beatles because Charlie Manson saw "subliminal messages" in their songs. But with the case of Main Campf, which is other extreme, you wave to blame the writer simply because his intention was to convert in the first place. He simply succeeded in what he tried to achieve. Jack Chick is less convinging so it's not thanks to him that he doesn't suceed.
(To clarify, I would never thought of suggesting that some books should be banned or some authors limited. Free speech might not be perfect but it's the best choice in the offer. However, if I was a writer whose book caused someone to kill himself, I wouldn't be able to help but feel partially responsible. I wouldn't be able to get over it just by saying "Eh, he would probably kill himself sooner or later anyway".)

If words actually did have this magic ability, I'd just use it to make you all stop debating the point and agree with me. But they don't, so I suppose I have to just keep on trying to get you to change your minds of your own free will.

But you still took it out of context.

It's inconsequential whether they had those ideas in them before or not. As I have already stated, both ignorance and those with mercurial personalities are dangerous. If you change your mind with every single new idea that comes your way, then you are a horribly unpredictable and therefore dangerous person, no matter what those ideas may be. If you're ignorant and just pick up the first idea that comes along without considering other possibilities, then you are dangerous.

Hm , but that kind of ignorance is very often, isn't it? Wouldn't you say that the guy who says "I am not interested into policits" has the same kind of ignorance? And in a way, that can be dangerous too, because he might go out to vote and vote on a whim instead with knowledge - or he may not go out to vote and cumulatively cause a situation like with Leppen in France or with Heider in Austria - that voting minority manages to vote out the extreme national-chauvinish because reasonable majority "wasn't interested in politics".
With which said I think I just helped your case...
But the point I was trying to make is, either the majority of humanity is ignorant, or perhaps we're all ignorant in some way, because we all tend to sometimes believe things that turn out not to be true. But then why use such harsh word as ignorance?

[Yeahduff]

You oversell free will. We'll go back to your Bible example. You clearly are exaggerating with your "THE BIBLE IS MAKING ME BELIEVE AGAINST MY WILL," thing, but not every new held belief is conciously decided upon. Keep reading that Bible, and I guarantee your belief system will begin matching it whether you decide for it to or not.

Now think about the billion dollar advertising industry. Most people say ads have little effect on them (I do, though I have little exposure to advertising and little money to reward it with). But would all these companies spend so much if it didn't work? Clearly advertising at that level works to do more than just get the word out so you can make a conscious decision to give McDonald's your money. We've all heard of McDonald's and we all know what it's about. The ad dollars are there to foster a culture filled with ideas that logically send you to get a Big Mac. Ads, the ideas, the words, the images, they're all just there. You might find McDonald's lackluster, you might be on a diet, you might want to spend your money on something better, but chances are you'll head to the restaurant anyways. And if not you, hundreds of millions with just the attitude I discribed certainly do. Yeah, there's a conscious choice, but that's only part of the equation. It's those ubiquitous words and images and ideas intrinsically woven into our culture that plants the seed. It's what the Nazis did, it's what the Bolshevik's did, and it's what Nike does. Do you really honestly think that words have no power, that we have absolute complete control over our destinies? Are the residents of the US just predisposed to Christianity, and Sauds predisposed to Islam, or do the words and ideas that form the respective cultures foster certain beliefs?

[NerdHouse]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the comics over at Clone.Manga

Though I must say, that may be for a good reason. Something like sexy loser might by lewd, but you could still recommend it.

I still have trouble recommending stuff like Nana's Life. Not because it depicts actual acts of pedophillia and mutilation. Oh no, I actually don't have a problem with using those concepts. But because the comic can, and will, actually stab at you painfully on an emotional level.

I was never quite a depressed as the day that I read the final strips.

But, if you insist, go ahead and read it. Because THAT is what I would consider a realy 'dangerous' web comic.

[TBAC]

More to the point, I don't think there is such thing as a "dangerous comic." A comic is just ink on paper, information to be communicated in visual form.

a computer virus is simply information, is it not? a biological virus might be considered the same. ideas are the most dangerous form of information there is and spread wider and faster than any virus ever.

Information is dangerous. And you're thinking as a rational, sane human being in a world that is not rational nor sane. wait....



medication time



....now I don't need to kill anything for a good 2 hours.


virtually anything that challenges your current belief system should be and is generally considered dangerous.

since I'm entirely solipsistic the only danger to me is that I might begin to believe in something....I'm pretty certain you ppl are a product of my imagination anyway...

[Black Sparrow]

Going back to what McDuffies said, say you read an essay on the duckbill platypus. Most people (maybe not you, Jim, with your superhuman discerning ability) will take what that essay says for granted.

Now, say the essay says they live in groups, like beavers or otters do in the west. You'd have no reason to doubt that unless you had previous knowledge. Say that the essay said it had live babies. Anyone who doesn't know they lay eggs would simply assume that's true and move on.

My point is that words are very powerful, especially if there's no previous knowledge base for the idea.

A different example: a kid picks up a Chick Track. He has relatively little knowledge of Christianity. Also, he accepts the authority of adults, so will take what the track says for truth (like we'd take it for granted that a scholar on the duckbilled platypus would know what he's talking about).

So what does he come away with? One of two things: the belief that, even if he doesn't believe in God, everyone thinks gays, sex, and evolution are wrong; or, if he's sharp enough to see through the lies, the believe that Christians are psychopaths. Both are dangerous, and this simple idea could lead to some very dangerous radicalism.

The fact is, humans react to their environment, and that includes learning about new things we'd never heard of before. How far that influence goes is a matter that's up in the air. I guess you could say it's the Nature vs Nuture debate.

[IVstudios]

I agree with Jim for the most part. Ideas aren't dangerous, people are dangerous. It's not enough to have a bad idea to make a dangerous situation, you also need a bad person.

I'm not afraid that someone might think about killing me, I'm afraid someone might kill me.

Though I suppose it isn't possible to have the action without the idea. But it is entirely possible to have the idea without the action.

So ideally, we shouldn't be teaching our children what to think, but how to think.

Did any of that make sense, or was it just insane, over-condensed rambling?

[McDuffies]

Yep, if ignorance and stupidity means not having previous knowledge about every possible topic and sometimes accepting other people's words simply because they seem to know more of the subject than I do - heck, then sign me up into ignorant and stupid. And stay away from me, cause I'm dangerous.

[Jim North]

Sorry in advance for the extremely long post with all the quotes in it.

Well what if the person is mentally ill? Mentally ill people usually aren't held responsible for their actions.

I thought this might come up. But even in this case, the problem still isn't whatever idea or work or person or whatever the mentally ill person fixates on. It's still the person and their illness that needs to be dealt with.

In any case, I don't think that you can say that it's exclusively person's fault. Fault has to be shared between that person, his enviroment that reacted or didn't react to his state, and the creator, depending on case.

I agree. I've just been simplifying my examples for the most part . . . but I was trying to make this point - in part, at least - when I pointed out the publishers of the electronics book were to blame in your earlier example.

But you still took it out of context.

I'm sorry if I did . . . I'm afraid I must admit that there were a few parts of your earlier post that I wasn't quite sure I was reading right. Curse the language barrier and such.

Hm , but that kind of ignorance is very often, isn't it?

Yes. But I'll get to that in just a moment . . .

Wouldn't you say that the guy who says "I am not interested into policits" has the same kind of ignorance?

Not exactly, unless that person manages to not hear a single thing about politics, or if they forget it all at some point. A person who isn't interested in politics could actually be very knowledgeable on the subject . . . just not interested in it.

With which said I think I just helped your case...

Yay!

But then why use such harsh word as ignorance?

Ignorance, despite what most people would like to think, is not actually a harsh word. It simply describes a lack of knowledge, a state of being that everyone on Earth is currently in. Everyone is ignorant in some fashion . . . we don't know everything about the universe just yet, after all, so we can't help but be ignorant. And ignorance isn't like stupidity, which is being willfully ignorant. Stupid people simply refuse to learn, and so stupidity is a harsh word . . . and rightfully so. Stupid people cause the damage they do on purpose while ignorance generally only does so by accident.

Furthermore, ignorance can be fixed. All it really takes is a willingness to learn. Don't know something? Go figure it out. Or find someone willing to teach you. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, and there's no reason to use the word "ignorant" as an insult. It's simply a before-knowledge state . . . still dangerous, but a danger that can easily be minimized.

Stupidity, I must add, can also be fixed, but it's vastly more difficult since stupid people don't want to learn any different.

Yep, if ignorance and stupidity means not having previous knowledge about every possible topic

Thank you for taking my words to the extreme. I'm sure they've had a mighty fine trip, but could you scale them back just a little bit? Thank you.

and sometimes accepting other people's words simply because they seem to know more of the subject than I do

I never said don't believe anything other people tell you, nor did I say to ignore experts when they're talking to you. All I'm doing is suggesting a healthy dose of skepticism.

And stay away from me, cause I'm dangerous.

As am I. And everyone else on this planet, to some degree or another.

Keep reading that Bible, and I guarantee your belief system will begin matching it whether you decide for it to or not.

I have noticed things like that, yes, and I understand the basis of subliminal messaging. I can't, of course, be entirely certain about the subliminals (MUST EAT TACO BEL- *cough* 'scuse me), but for the most part I've learned to ignore those tuggings. I'm not always entirely successful, naturally, but one does what one can.

In any case, these tugs are still not the ideas themselves inflicting themselves upon you. It's a mind trick that you do to yourself, your own subconscious brain working against your conscious mind. The Bible isn't sending off mystic waves that invade your synapses and realign them . . . it's the group mentality part of the human psyche asserting itself. It's the part of evolution that kept humans together in tribes for mutual protection so many thousands and millions of years ago. It's also part of our natural tendancy to seek out patterns, I think . . . though this is probably effected to a lesser degree.

As for subliminals, it's once again still not the ideas themselves attacking us . . . it's the companies that produce it. The subliminals don't just appear on their own out of thin air. They're not a particularly sharp rock on the ground that we might accidentally trip and fall on, gashing open the flesh. Without humans to create and direct these ideas, they're nothing. And more, they're even less with just humans behind it . . . there's the medium itself to be considered. If I just say "Buy McDonald's" to your face, you're just going to take it like any other suggestion. Subliminals, however, trick your brain into taking the information without alerting your defenses. The subliminal nature of the message is doing this . . . the ideas aren't capable of doing it by themselves.

Do you really honestly think that words have no power,

I never said that, really . . . I simply said that they weren't inherently dangerous. Still, yes, I honestly think that words have no power in and of themselves. Humans have power, and they are the ones that give words power.

that we have absolute complete control over our destinies?

I never said this either, and I actually disagree with it strongly. I'm saying that we always have a choice. What those choices are may be severely limited at times, but that does not preclude the fact that the choice is still there.

Are the residents of the US just predisposed to Christianity, and Sauds predisposed to Islam, or do the words and ideas that form the respective cultures foster certain beliefs?

People foster those beliefs. Parents teach it to their children. Friends and family can help reinforce those beliefs. Governments can follow those beliefs, giving the impression that those under their rule should do the same. The words and ideas cannot have such a widespread effect all by themselves. They cannot spread to those who do not believe them without those peoples' acceptance. The Koran does not go door to door on its own teaching children.

And I do not believe that people are born predisposed to anything . . . they are blank slates to be filled by those who raise them.

(maybe not you, Jim, with your superhuman discerning ability)

Dangit, my words just got taken to the extreme again! They better be getting some decent frequent flyer miles out of this.

Anyone who doesn't know they lay eggs would simply assume that's true and move on.

Do you find yourself assuming things on a regular basis without your consent?

One of two things: the belief that, even if he doesn't believe in God, everyone thinks gays, sex, and evolution are wrong; or, if he's sharp enough to see through the lies, the believe that Christians are psychopaths.

Exactly. He can choose what he wants to bring away from the idea. He has read someone else's idea and he chooses what to believe after that. He doesn't have to follow the original idea exactly . . . if he did have to, then yes, sure, you'd be right. The idea had some weird power over him that forced him to believe a certain way. But by your own example, he doesn't have to.

Both are dangerous, and this simple idea could lead to some very dangerous radicalism.

The ideas are not dangerous, the boy is because he's the one acting on it, other people could have the idea without acting on it and therefore not be dangerous and blah de blah de blah etc etc.

I agree with Jim for the most part.

Yay!

Though I suppose it isn't possible to have the action without the idea.

That's an interesting thought. I'll have to ponder that one for a while.

So ideally, we shouldn't be teaching our children what to think, but how to think.

Yes. I agree with you 100%. It has long been my opinion that they should teach logic and critical thinking as mandatory courses in schools. Teach children how to better process the information they take in, how to weed out the truth from the nonsense, how to discern between concepts that truly work and ideas that simply hinder progress. I really wish that I had been able to take such classes when I was younger, as I feel they would have saved me a lot of trouble and strife over the years. That they would have helped me weed out a ton of the mental garbage that's still lodged in my brain despite my best efforts.

Did any of that make sense, or was it just insane, over-condensed rambling?

It made plenty of sense. It may still have been insane . . . but what isn't, really?

[Yeahduff]

Keep reading that Bible, and I guarantee your belief system will begin matching it whether you decide for it to or not.

I have noticed things like that, yes, and I understand the basis of subliminal messaging. I can't, of course, be entirely certain about the subliminals (MUST EAT TACO BEL- *cough* 'scuse me), but for the most part I've learned to ignore those tuggings. I'm not always entirely successful, naturally, but one does what one can.

In any case, these tugs are still not the ideas themselves inflicting themselves upon you. It's a mind trick that you do to yourself, your own subconscious brain working against your conscious mind. The Bible isn't sending off mystic waves that invade your synapses and realign them . . . it's the group mentality part of the human psyche asserting itself. It's the part of evolution that kept humans together in tribes for mutual protection so many thousands and millions of years ago. It's also part of our natural tendancy to seek out patterns, I think . . . though this is probably effected to a lesser degree.

As for subliminals, it's once again still not the ideas themselves attacking us . . . it's the companies that produce it. The subliminals don't just appear on their own out of thin air. They're not a particularly sharp rock on the ground that we might accidentally trip and fall on, gashing open the flesh. Without humans to create and direct these ideas, they're nothing. And more, they're even less with just humans behind it . . . there's the medium itself to be considered. If I just say "Buy McDonald's" to your face, you're just going to take it like any other suggestion. Subliminals, however, trick your brain into taking the information without alerting your defenses. The subliminal nature of the message is doing this . . . the ideas aren't capable of doing it by themselves.

Well, now you've got me confused. Words and ideas aren't powerful because they couldn't do anything if we didn't have brains? Well, sharp objects, I suppose, wouldn't be dangerous if we didn't have soft flesh, but alas, we do, so they're dangerous. As words with brains.

I don't think I was talking about subliminals, but we're still talking about words, used in a certain way, causing a "tugging" in your brain. It doesn't matter whether you ignore that tugging or not, the fact that it tugs means power is being exerted. Some may be able to fight the tugging, but if a fight is necessary, something must be going on.

[quote="Jim North]

Do you really honestly think that words have no power,

I never said that, really . . . I simply said that they weren't inherently dangerous. Still, yes, I honestly think that words have no power in and of themselves. Humans have power, and they are the ones that give words power.[/quote]

Well, yeah. Humans also give guns power. If they didn't they'd be useless piles of metal lying around. Even if you believe the old adage "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," you still have to admit that guns have an inherent danger because they can be used as tools (or accidently) to destroy another human. Words are the same way. Whether you mean it or not, you can destroy someone with words, or you can lead someone to destroy another in a more literal sense using words.


[quote="Jim North]

Are the residents of the US just predisposed to Christianity, and Sauds predisposed to Islam, or do the words and ideas that form the respective cultures foster certain beliefs?

People foster those beliefs. Parents teach it to their children. Friends and family can help reinforce those beliefs. Governments can follow those beliefs, giving the impression that those under their rule should do the same. The words and ideas cannot have such a widespread effect all by themselves. They cannot spread to those who do not believe them without those peoples' acceptance. The Koran does not go door to door on its own teaching children.

And I do not believe that people are born predisposed to anything . . . they are blank slates to be filled by those who raise them.[/quote]

The Quran may not go door to door preaching on it's own, but it talks people into doing it on it's behalf. No one would be preaching about praying five times a day, giving to charity, going on pilgrimages, etc, unless they were exposed to the idea of Islam, revealed by the Quran. Ideas and words. Surely words and ideas have to be formed by people to have power, but the power remains in the words and in the ideas, and this power moves people to do things they wouldn't have otherwise. Certainly there's a choice, but no one's devoting their entire life to a god they've never seen or heard from unless someone talked them into it using words.

I'll just say that I also completely disagree that people are not predisposed to anything, and move on.

[McDuffies]

Well, guns don't kill people, people do, right?

But guns allow people to kill people much easier and in much less fair fights.

[Eps]

I think were getting a little off topic here, with the hole nazi thing, but here

[LAGtheNoggin]

Mickey Mouse trying to top himself in the 1930's is probably one of the most dangerous I've read...