Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
New coordinated terrorist attack in Paris New coordinated terrorist attack in Paris

11-27-2015 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
The problem we keep coming back to is that there is simply nothing wrong at all with criticizing a belief system. It's not bigoted to say Islam sucks any more than it is to say Christianity sucks, which we also do. Every time we do this, no, EVERY time, you and others claim we're saying that every Muslim sucks which is simply not true. The criticism is broadly about the religion itself, and narrowly about those who follow it too closely (believe in killing apostates, cartoonists, etc), of which there are millions.
Because I gotta say, contra the screeching denials earlier in the thread, it does kinda look like the "ask" from Team AR-15 Outside the Mosque here is for you guys to be able to sit around swapping Sam Harris youtubes and hot takes about how backwards the Mussulmen are* without fear of anyone disagreeing or calling you names.


*Except for that part about requiring multiple eyewitnesses for rape, that's a good idea, we need sharia law on campus to stop Obama's Title IX war on men.
11-27-2015 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vhawk01
It was the most important clause, from my standpoint. Are you suggesting that picking one part of a long post to respond to is somehow a unique sin on my part?

I'm not trying to say he is bigoted, though of course he is. I'm trying simply to show that his argument shows the opposite of what he intends to.

It isnt a bizarre interpretation of his post, its the correct one. Which you certainly know. If not, feel free to disagree or refute it. His post clearly said that its hyperanxious masculinity that is more to blame rather than Islam, and that Muslim countries have pervasive hyperanxious masculinity. What is your interpretation of this?

Dont worry you dont have to actually think or respond, you can just say "LOL SMP" and continue on your merry way, I'm sure its in your best interests to do so.
Your standpoint is weird. He was clearly saying that if you insist on taking a reductionist approach to the problem of terrorism, then a much better would be hyperanxious masculinity, or however he phrased it, than Islam. That doesn't mean he think's one is more to blame than the other(depending upon what you mean by "more to blame"). Islam could be the most important motivating factor in many individuals who commit terrorism in the middle east, none of us know. We do know that reducing the causitive factor to "Islam" is really bad because it leaves out whole swaths of known terrorist profiles while casting a net of suspicion around way too many innocents.

But also, your post is ironic, in that the one I responded to you were lecturing Dvaut about making gotcha posts. All the while that whole offshoot came from a post in which you were concern trolling Dvaut over his "tactics."
11-27-2015 , 10:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
The problem we keep coming back to is that there is simply nothing wrong at all with criticizing a belief system. It's not bigoted to say Islam sucks any more than it is to say Christianity sucks, which we also do. Every time we do this, no, EVERY time, you and others claim we're saying that every Muslim sucks which is simply not true. The criticism is broadly about the religion itself, and narrowly about those who follow it too closely (believe in killing apostates, cartoonists, etc), of which there are millions.
No it is clear that the objections are that there is a false narrative being promoted by a lot of pols regarding Islam to promote political agendas.
11-27-2015 , 11:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
I don't get this whole attitude. In fact, Islam has been debated on this forum for like 10 years without anyone ever saying before that it wasn't relevant. It's just the newest way of changing the subject.

This is a thread about the Paris terrorist attacks. I think that the Paris terrorist attacks were the result, in large part, of the words written in the source documents of Islam. Like, what is the "political point" of discussing the Paris terrorist attacks? Virtually nobody here lives in France, nobody is in favour of radical Islam, so under these apparent new rules of engagement for the Politics forum, why does this thread even exist?
Maybe you have missed this, but tons of American politicians and aspiring American politicians have proposed sweeping policy changes that directly affect Americans, including proposing the admission of strictly Christian refugees to documenting all Muslims in America, including citizens, in a database, to stalking random Muslims with semiautomatic rifles. If your whole point is that there are some Muslims in the world who believe some terrible things but that we should do absolutely nothing about this, then you are in 100% harmonious agreement with the vast majority of liberals in the forum, and we're not really sure why you need to keep reminding us about some of the terrible things we largely already know about, especially when you aren't suggesting we change our lives or thinking in response to rehearing these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss_Lonely_hearts
How long has Islam been around? 1400 years? All of a sudden there is a raise of extremist?

In 1982 we had the Lebanon conflict. In 1990 we had the Gulf War. In 1991 the Iraqi No-Fly Zones conflict. In 2001 to current we have the War in Afghanistan. From 2003 to 2011 we have the war on terror (Iraq). In 2004 war in North-West Pakistan. In 2011 war on Libya (Death of Muammar Gaddafi). War on ISIS ongoing. War in Afghanistan.

And nobody thinks that people who we have bombed might be pissed off? Therefore that anger is taken out under the guise off religious extremists. Think of it as packaging but the real problem underneath is never addressed which is we have a lot of countries mutilated and deformed and no where to vent.
You are glossing over several centuries where Muslim conflict was largely carried out by standing armies instead of terrorist cells, but if there is one thing we have learned from this thread it's that deaths from terrorists are the only ones that really count. Deaths caused by armies are just part of the plan.
11-27-2015 , 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
The problem we keep coming back to is that there is simply nothing wrong at all with criticizing a belief system. It's not bigoted to say Islam sucks any more than it is to say Christianity sucks, which we also do. Every time we do this, no, EVERY time, you and others claim we're saying that every Muslim sucks which is simply not true. The criticism is broadly about the religion itself, and narrowly about those who follow it too closely (believe in killing apostates, cartoonists, etc), of which there are millions.
Its not simply criticising it though, its Islam ergo terrorism.

As has been repeated ad infinitum no one has a problem with criticism of/the religion.

The problem is a reductionionism that does very little to help us understand terrorism because of the obvious fact if we go Islam ergo terrrorism then we are excluding all the other obvious X ergo terrorism.

It also does nothing to inform us from a policy POV.

So in short the criticism being made is that Islam ergo terrorism is just not a useful thing to say.

Its so not that hard.
11-27-2015 , 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D
How about you think about it harder?

Religion doesn't explain all violence.
lol walk it back
11-27-2015 , 11:58 AM
This is quite an interesting take on racism, antisemitism, terrorism, and nationalism - what he calls 'Europe's perfect storm'. Particularly how racism changed from what he calls inferiorising to differentiating.
11-27-2015 , 12:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by O.A.F.K.1.1
Its not simply criticising it though, its Islam ergo terrorism.

As has been repeated ad infinitum no one has a problem with criticism of/the religion.

The problem is a reductionionism that does very little to help us understand terrorism because of the obvious fact if we go Islam ergo terrrorism then we are excluding all the other obvious X ergo terrorism.

It also does nothing to inform us from a policy POV.

So in short the criticism being made is that Islam ergo terrorism is just not a useful thing to say.

Its so not that hard.
Of course it's important to understand why people are motivated to murder. When terrorists kill cartoonists for drawing pictures of Muhammad, it probably has less to do with foreign policy, and more to do with it being an ultimate crime under Islam to insult the prophet. France shouldn't consider changing their foreign policy in response and neither should we, nor should they prohibit insulting the prophet.

Also, the public should not buy the reflexive PC response that we should respect their culture and not offend. No, we should encouraging cartoonists to continue offending Muslims who take their religion too seriously and thereby keep the spotlight shining brightly on the sheer ridiculous and toxic principles they follow. Only when they learn to take exception like normal people should we consider the PC line.
11-27-2015 , 12:08 PM
yo foldn, i'm waiting for you/tien/chrisv/vhawk/etc to answer my question, what do we as westerners get out of a wholesale condemnation of islam, that would be in our best interests?
11-27-2015 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
yo foldn, i'm waiting for you/tien/chrisv/vhawk/etc to answer my question, what do we as westerners get out of a wholesale condemnation of islam, that would be in our best interests?
When we stand up for liberal principles: free speech over punishing blasphemy, religious tolerance over punishing apostasy, representative government over sharia law, we are taking the right side in a war of ideals. Not to stand up for those principles is to sit on the side line. Opposing them is to fight for the wrong side.
11-27-2015 , 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
When we stand up for liberal principles: free speech over punishing blasphemy, religious tolerance over punishing apostasy, representative government over sharia law, we are taking the right side in a war of ideals. Not to stand up for those principles is to sit on the side line. Opposing them is to fight for the wrong side.
The argument is that a wholesale condemnation is not warranted because only a fraction of Muslims want to punish blasphemy, interpret Sharia law in such way as to subjigate women to being chattel, kill people for practicing a gay lifestyle, hate jews, etc, Bad argument?
11-27-2015 , 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adios
The argument is that a wholesale condemnation is not warranted because only a fraction of Muslims want to punish blasphemy, interpret Sharia law in such way as to subjigate women to being chattel, kill people for practicing a gay lifestyle, hate jews, etc, Bad argument?
The condemnation is for the set of beliefs and those who support them. Those who don't support those beliefs should not be condemned. I realize it's easy to make broad statements like the one you're responding to, and that there are many people who condemn Muslims who do not support those backward beliefs. You are right to object to those people, just make sure you're not guilty of the same sort of generalization your fighting against.
11-27-2015 , 12:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
The condemnation is for the set of beliefs and those who support them. Those who don't support those beliefs should not be condemned. I realize it's easy to make broad statements like the one you're responding to, and that there are many people who condemn Muslims who do not support those backward beliefs. You are right to object to those people, just make sure you're not guilty of the same sort of generalization your fighting against.
Yep, fair enough, I agree.
11-27-2015 , 01:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
yo foldn, i'm waiting for you/tien/chrisv/vhawk/etc to answer my question, what do we as westerners get out of a wholesale condemnation of islam, that would be in our best interests?
Every time I call for condemnation of Wahabi Islamism, or conservative Islam, Sharia Law included, the only argument you have is that I condemn all Muslims. Did I even say Westerners should wholesale condemn Islam? Where the hell did I ever say that?

Yall done shifting goal posts?
11-27-2015 , 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
yo foldn, i'm waiting for you/tien/chrisv/vhawk/etc to answer my question, what do we as westerners get out of a wholesale condemnation of islam, that would be in our best interests?
Well as mentioned its a little bit of a goalpost shift since, apart from maybe me, I dont think anyone has been this broad about "Islam" and even from my perspective I just mean "the bad parts" (I just think the foundations are bad, so the good parts are mostly lipstick on a pig).

But to be generous and answer the spirit of your question, the same that we as westerners get out of a wholesale condemnation of misogyny, of racism, of disrespect towards the poor, of fascism, of greed and hatred and small-mindedness.

Or is this a general question you post in every thread in this forum? I looked through the race-themed threads, the US-bombing-other-countries-themed threads, the rape threads, etc and I couldn't find this question asked by you. That must mean you have it clearly answered in your mind what we get out of those positions?


Also I gotta say there is an ugly little strand of utilitarianism underlying your question I think. If we didnt, as a western society, benefit from condemning racism or sexism or discrimination, would that mean we shouldnt do so? Not a particularly liberal attitude, IMO.
11-27-2015 , 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss_Lonely_hearts
A Muslim standing army? Did that army attack US? on US soil? Did Muslim men march into Europe?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmed_the_Conqueror

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayreddin_Barbarossa
11-27-2015 , 02:42 PM
I've already linked to Suleiman the Magnificent. But again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suleiman_the_Magnificent

Quote:
Suleiman became a prominent monarch of 16th-century Europe, presiding over the apex of the Ottoman Empire's military, political, and economic power. Suleiman personally led Ottoman armies in conquering the Christian strongholds of Belgrade, Rhodes, as well as most of Hungary before his conquests were checked at the Siege of Vienna in 1529.
11-27-2015 , 04:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss_Lonely_hearts
MrWookie, I don't mean to be rude but those dates are 1400-1500. That is 500 years ago. Do you believe that current US and Europe policy making is based are influenced on those events? Do you believe that the US people (are aware of those events) and the President are influenced by those events that happened in 1400-1500??
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Pasha
11-27-2015 , 04:22 PM
The first genocide of the 20th century was perpretated by Muslim Turks against Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. This is the 100th anniversary.
11-27-2015 , 04:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberajack
perfect example. this MP is embarrassing http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle27432897/
The all cultures are alike mantra is nonsense and people saying it are more likely to be guilty of bigotry of low expectations rather than being honest.

We are not comparing cuisines or pottery here.

Culture that values individual freedom and rights is superior to cultures based on dogma, anywhere, in any point in history.
11-27-2015 , 05:25 PM
I have watched that show yesterday and they had pretty much the same discussion there that we had ITT.
11-27-2015 , 05:33 PM
Miss_lonely_hearts,

What's troubling me is the nature of your game.
11-27-2015 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss_Lonely_hearts
.
Apparently there is no evidence this letter was ever written by Pike, and may very well have been created after WWII. That would make perfect sense to me as more freemason conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
11-27-2015 , 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Miss_lonely_hearts,

What's troubling me is the nature of your game.
Quality microbet
11-27-2015 , 05:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
yo foldn, i'm waiting for you/tien/chrisv/vhawk/etc to answer my question, what do we as westerners get out of a wholesale condemnation of islam, that would be in our best interests?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoldnDark
When we stand up for liberal principles: free speech over punishing blasphemy, religious tolerance over punishing apostasy, representative government over sharia law, we are taking the right side in a war of ideals. Not to stand up for those principles is to sit on the side line. Opposing them is to fight for the wrong side.
lol

      
m