|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/20/2010 : 11:47:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
We lock up murderers. Does this make us anti-freedom. Of course not.
When a pacifist physically defends his/her family, is the principle of pacifism betrayed? Of course not.
No principle stands up to extremes.
You will have to make a choice between islam and your Constitution. The question is when do you make it.
This is not a bigotry issue - ideas don't get human rights.
This is not a partisan political issue - your political partisanship matters not at all to islam.
Islam will exploit the Constitution's guarantee of freedom in order to push its social upheaval. Just like it has in Europe.
It's not any kind of supposition. It's not any kind of guess-work.
It is the dogma. It is the doctrine.
Anyone heard of the OIC's anti-blasphemy mandate? Anyone notice the separate Sharia legal systems rising in Europe? Anyone remember the implied death threats that caused South Park to self-censor?
It's not about freedom, islam will rip that from you at its first opportunity; it's about dogma. And it's about waking up.
As for freedom to practice religion, there must be limits. otherwise we can look forward to parents letting their children die by using faith healing and prayer instead of medical resources. Kara, people learned, it seems, absolutely nothing from your death.
You are going to have to face this, like it or not, because islam will force you to. Your "live and let live" principle will be be broken, by islam's "convert or die" absolutism. The only choice you get is whether most of the principle will remain. You will either suspend your Constitution, or limit its application, or you will see it utterly decimated. Those are your choices; if you think otherwise, you are living in a dream world. You had better get acclimated to that and started thinking with some clarity.
The problem in this thread is the knee-jerk reaction to the tea party and the GOP. If something is true, it is true regardless of who says it - even if it's the tea party. Now the radical right in America is trying to turn it into a religious war of competing dogmas. But you don't have to be in the grips of a religious dogma to realize a dogma is dangerous, anti-freedom, totalitarianist and vicious.
That makes about as much sense as refusing to vote Democrat because of one issue and letting the Republicans win by default.
And if you are that stupid, you deserve what you get. Sadly, none of the rest of the world does.
|
You step into this thread with that post, and now you are crying because I'm not being nice to you, and how you just want to have a discussion?
You are even more pathetic than I had previously thought.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 11:51:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Can we agree that today, fundamentalist Muslims differ from fundamentalist Christians & Jews? (In both their desire and capacity to harm others....worldwide).
(This has nothing to due with the mosque.....just a straight up general question) |
Originally posted by tomk80
In what form? |
(In both their desire and capacity to harm others....worldwide).
I'm not sure whether this seems surprising, but I would argue not. I'd argue that all the characterictics of fundamentalist Islam, like a disrespect of (the life of) unbelievers, a disrespect for life in general, the division of the world in outsiders and insiders, the shunning of those people who drop out of the faith etc etc, are all present in Fundamentalist Christianity and Jewism in Europe and America as well.
If there is a difference, it is one of degree at best.
|
It appears to be a large degree then. I don't see much in the way of actually killing people from the fundamentalist Christians & Jews.......currently. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 08/20/2010 11:54:46 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 13:53:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
It appears to be a large degree then. I don't see much in the way of actually killing people from the fundamentalist Christians & Jews.......currently.
|
Currently being the last 10 years, at best. To me that comes over as nothing more than a temporary respite.
I know that currently violence concentrates in a number of muslim countries, especially Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. To me at least, this has more to do with civil war than with muslim violence against other groups.
Also, while suicide bombings currently seem to be the method of choice for muslim groups, this is something of the last 15 years. Before that, from what I know, muslims where quite low in percentage of attacks. Now, something has happened in the last 15 years that apparently made this method popular amongst muslims. What I don't agree on is that islam is particularly instrumental in this. I've seen the suras etc that are used to justify this view, but similar texts are present in the bible as well. So I disagree that this is a dogma thing, rather than cultural.
Last, very little is necessary to turn Jews, Christians (or Hindus for that matter) violent. The massacre of muslims by Baruch Goldstein is still looked at favorably by certain jewish groups. Extremist Christian groups like the Branch Davidians crop up every once in a while and the KKK is still active. Personally I think the reason they have not turned violent is because currently Christian countries and Israel belong to the top of the world's pecking order, instead of the bottom. I don't think the line between the current rhetoric of Fundamentalist Christians and actual violence is particularly large. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 13:56:21 [Permalink]
|
| Let me phrase this differently. If muslim violence would have been exceptionally brutal the past 50 years or 100 years in comparison to other faiths, I would think you had a point. But it is not. As far as I can see, muslim violence has grown strongly in the last decade, not earlier. In a time where the balance in world politics got upset due to the end of the cold war and both superpowers losing a lot of power and influence, a war which was very much fought by proxy in Asia and the Middle East. Which to me indicates that this has more of a political than a religious cause. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 08/20/2010 13:59:05 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 14:52:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Here's Dave's game:
He will try to get someone, like me, who speaks of the dangers of islam to cite one or more sura, and then he will make the following claims (as evidenced by his earlier post when he tells us he will:
(1) It could be read as somehow ambiguous.
(2) It is sometimes said to be interpreted differently.
(3) There is contrary or contradictory material somewhere.
(4) There's some self-professed muslim, somewhere, presumably, who does not interpret it the way others do.
These arguments focus on the reader/interpreter and not on the content itself, which is intended to be absolute and prescriptive (to have moral command force). |
But it has no moral command force if everyone ignores it.| Dave probably doesn't even think a given dogma has prescriptive force. |
Not if everyone ignores it.| Well, it takes some study in ethics to get a grip on prescriptive force. |
But you're not going to say how or why, you're just going to imply that I'm uneducated and that somehow makes your argument correct.| Now, we've all seen rhetorical tactics like Dave's before. Groups and individuals many and various of christianity disavow and reinterpret at will, hoping to avoid respnsibility for the actual content of the Bible. |
If they disavow or ignore certain dogmas, why should they be held responsible for them? Please provide the ethical calculus from which that comes, because if it's true, it seems that people who accept evolutionary theory are going to have to accept responsibility for Darwin's racism.| There is even (and I know this is going to be hard to fathom, but it's true) some people who call themselves christians who claim that it's all metaphor. |
And?| There is no way to actually discuss the content when people deliberately keep shifting the goalposts, which is what Dave wants to be able to do. |
I've got no goalposts to shift. You keep expressing a desire to discuss "the dogma" of Islam, but won't actually state what dogma that is. You also won't state how it's relevant to this thread.| I am not permitting him this opportunity, so he depicts this as my being incapable of citing sura. |
No, you appear to be incapable of simply stating what "dogma" it is you'd like to discuss. Whether sura or just in simple terms. You also seem to be incapable of recognizing that dogma without adherents is powerless.| Is anyone actually buying that ploy? It is not me being ambiguous; it is Dave deliberately striving for the opportunity for ambiguity so he can attack from the fog. |
You refuse to state what "dogma" you'd like to discuss. I can neither agree with you about it nor criticize it without you actually laying it out.And yet how many people actually claim that the Bible has no content? That there are not prescriptive principles involved. Anyone believe that the Bible does not prescribe the primacy of god? That is does not prescribe spreading the "good news?" That it does not claim some things are "abominations" and prescribes against them? That is does not refer to slavery, war, murder in a normatively positive way (a postiive normative reference is actually a call to moral obligation)?
Does anyone believe these ideas have no influence at all? |
Nice false dichotomy you've got there.| Well, according to Dave's arguments, the Bible doesn't do any of these things, because some self-professed christian somewhere, presumbly doesn't believe one and some self-professed christian somewhere else, presumably doesn't believe another one and so forth and so on. |
Yup, that's a huge false dichotomy you've created.| Even if one could prove that 100% of christians believed some unpleasant aspect of the Bible (which is not possible not even in principle since we are dealing with mental states and anecdotal "evidence), Dave has still set the game up so he can appeal to *possible* contrary or contradictory interpretations. |
You're being paranoid, now.| This argument is not accepted when it come to christianity and the content of the Bible, so why would anyone accept it when it is about islam and the Koran? |
Good question. Perhaps if I were making such an argument, you'd have a point.| Dave wonders why I'm not about to start citing sura in order to let him proceed with his little game of shooting at false targets and get everyone off-topic. I am not quoting sura at this point because Dave is being, and he knows this, deliberately disingenuous. He is desperate to confuse discussions of dogma with personal attacks against those who hold them. He is desperate to turn any discussion into an opportunity to squeal, "Bigotry!" He still cannot or will not comprehend the difference between talking about ideas and talking about people. |
If you keep refusing to talk about the ideas, we can't talk about either one.| Of course, it is also noteworthy that someone else cited sura and doing so was not considered at all, except as an opportunity to conduct "Dave's little game." |
"Was not considered at all?" Citing sura? Or noteworthy?| One wonders why Dave would host a site dedicated, presumably, to the discussion of ideas if he thinks they are perfectly meaningless and without influence on the views of people. |
Strawman nonsense.| Normative language is a particular kind of language in that it is intended specifically to influence people and dogma is a particular kind of set of ideas in that they are specifically intended to be normatively prescribed. |
Of course.| Dave is correct about one thing: dogmas don't blow up buildings, people so. But his seeming conclusion that therefore dogmas have no influence on the mentality, motivations, and desires of any individuals who do blow up buildings (or the equivalent)is not thereby supported. |
That's not my conclusion, that's your strawman caricature of my conclusion.| In fact we know otherwise. |
Duh.| We know this because individuals who do blow up buildings (or the equivalent) use dogmas as justifications for their actions. |
Indeed. Whether or not that should be a justification for the revocation of constitutionally protected rights is what's at issue, here.| Guns don't kill people, people do using guns as a physical means - and that doesn't alter the fact that a gun is a device specifically designed to kill people. Dogmas don't blow up buildings (or the equivalent), people do using dogma as a doctrinal justification - and that doesn't alter the fact that some dogmas are built to encourage, even command, people to blow up buildings (or the equivalent). |
Again: duh.
You seem rather more interested in having a meta discussion about me than you are in talking about whatever it is you wanted to talk about, before. You made claims, I asked you to support those claims, and now you're doing little but insulting me. It's a wonderful evasion on your part, but hardly what I expected. Have we discovered your sacred cow, dglas? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 14:55:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by astropin
Can we agree that today, fundamentalist Muslims differ from fundamentalist Christians & Jews? (In both their desire and capacity to harm others....worldwide).
(This has nothing to due with the mosque.....just a straight up general question) |
Without "harm" being strictly defined, then no. Undermining the Constitition (Dominionists) will do more long-term harm to our entire country than blowing up a building or three. Worldwide I really couldn't say. There are still Christian missionaries fucking up small societies, aren't there? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 15:30:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
There are still Christian missionaries fucking up small societies, aren't there?
|
Probably. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 16:29:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Shorter dglas: I want to debate the muslim faith, but only by using my opinion on how the Koran or the suras should be read and not by looking at what muslims themselves actually believe.
|
Let me see if I get this straight. You are claiming that what muslims believe is not influenced by the Koran.
And there go the hopes of raising the level of conversation with this person, too.
|
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 16:34:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You step into this thread with that post, and now you are crying because I'm not being nice to you, and how you just want to have a discussion?
You are even more pathetic than I had previously thought.
|
No, no, no. You have it all wrong.
I'm not crying that you are not being nice to me.
I am pointing and laughing at you.
Which is precisely what you warrant. |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 16:38:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dglas
Here's Dave's game:
He will try to get someone, like me, who speaks of the dangers of islam to cite one or more sura, and then he will make the following claims (as evidenced by his earlier post when he tells us he will:
(1) It could be read as somehow ambiguous.
(2) It is sometimes said to be interpreted differently.
(3) There is contrary or contradictory material somewhere.
(4) There's some self-professed muslim, somewhere, presumably, who does not interpret it the way others do.
These arguments focus on the reader/interpreter and not on the content itself, which is intended to be absolute and prescriptive (to have moral command force).
|
But it has no moral command force if everyone ignores it.
|
So, your argument is that everyone ignores the content of the Koran and the Hadiths.
Evidence? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 17:04:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
So, your argument is that everyone ignores the content of the Koran and the Hadiths. |
No, that's your strawman again. You must be exhausted from beating up on that pathetic thing.I don't need to provide evidence for an argument that only exists inside your head. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 17:04:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Originally posted by Dude
You step into this thread with that post, and now you are crying because I'm not being nice to you, and how you just want to have a discussion?
You are even more pathetic than I had previously thought.
|
No, no, no. You have it all wrong.
I'm not crying that you are not being nice to me.
I am pointing and laughing at you.
Which is precisely what you warrant.
|
Yes, you are crying. Do you need your own pathetic whines to be re-quoted for you? As is obvious, you dropped into this thread with an insulting (not to mention entirely off topic) post in which your ignorance of US law is clearly on display. When called on your retarded little proclamation of doom you ran away from even trying to support your claims, probably because you subconsciously recognize you are wrong. You have evaded answering further questions by engaging in rabid incivility. Now you are simply throwing up an army of straw men to deflect the topic further away from you having to actually account for your claims by providing evidence. If you could support your claims in this thread with evidence and rational argument you would have done so already. It's obvious that you can't.
That laughter you are hearing? That isn't you laughing at anyone, it's everyone else here laughing at you. Interesting that you think it's you doing the laughing though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/20/2010 17:16:18 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 17:12:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
Let me see if I get this straight. You are claiming that what muslims believe is not influenced by the Koran. |
Another strawman. A really obviously transparent one, too. This is beginning to look premeditated. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 17:15:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by dglas
Let me see if I get this straight. You are claiming that what muslims believe is not influenced by the Koran. |
Another strawman. A really obviously transparent one, too. This is beginning to look premeditated.
|
Strawmen, like the various human gods, are a refuge for those who are without evidence or argument.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 08/20/2010 : 20:09:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
But it is not. As far as I can see, muslim violence has grown strongly in the last decade, not earlier. |
I don't see how that is true. What counts as muslim violence? There has been nearly endless violence in the past 90 years in SOME Islamic nation, not continuous in any single one. Lots of struggles for independence, Israel fighting everyone, various civil wars/revolutions, Turkey/Cyprus, Iran/Iraq, Kashmir, Soviet/Afghan, Chechnya, etc etc. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I… WTF…?
