peace on earth

[larvatus]

“If your intention is to stop terrorism, do not try to blame the whole population of Muslims for it because it cannot stop terrorism. It will radicalise more terrorists.”
- Malala Yousafzai, 15 December 2015We have before us an interesting example of a political argument, proceeding from a prediction of fact to a prescription of policy. Let us take

Comments

[oblomov_jerusal]

Aren't any numbers of casualities and of military in ancient sources in general notoriously inflated? Also, Tacitus' writings were discovered in Germany and curiously spend much time describing virtues of Germanic peoples.

[oblomov_jerusal]

Since the 18th century at least five attempts have been made to challenge the authenticity of the Annals as having been written by someone other than Tacitus, Voltaire's criticism being perhaps the first.[6] Voltaire was generally critical of Tacitus and said that Tacitus did not comply with the standards for providing a historical background to civilization.[7] In 1878 John Wilson Ross and in 1890 Polydore Hochart suggested that the whole of the Annals had been forged by the Italian scholar Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459).[8][9][10] According to Robert Van Voorst this was an "extreme hypothesis" which never gained a following among modern scholars.[10]

[larvatus]

Not really. What is your point regarding Tacitus?

What was the purpose of your commentary?

[rx_79g]

Was it to point out the fallacies in Malala Yousafzai's statement? Or was it to provide a platform for some other argument

RE: What was the purpose of your commentary?

[larvatus]

You are mistaking analysis for prescription. The factual question of pervasiveness of religious violence in this or that faith cannot be answered by a ban on its wholesale blame. Neither does the strategic concern about efficiency in the clash of civilizations entail the requirement to divide and conquer. Total destruction is always on the table; utter dispersion all the more so. But to observe is not to advocate.