dialamah

Yeah, this forum is pretty heavily weighted in favor of Conservatives, so what did you expect? I won't vote Conservative, even though I don't like JT much - Conservative ideology is too much like fundamental Christians/Muslims for my liking - demanding that people conform to certain sexual mores and behaviors, excluding people based on "tribalism", rejecting science and making the economy/low taxes a priority over the environment and people. Not interested in any of that.

I could say the same about you and your attitude toward violence perpetrated by White guys who share many of the same views you do, hmm? At least I recognize that there are *good* and *bad* white guys, along with *good* and *bad* Muslims, while you are stuck in "All white guys are good (but hard done by), and all Muslims are bad (and coddled)". Case in point: Ergo: All Muslims are terrorists, potential terrorists or supportive of terrorism. Which is patently untrue, given that they are most often the victims of such terrorism.

??? I was using an example; no intention of painting you as "anything". I don't even know what color you are - well, I didn't until now. Also, I said "White Christian" - surely that lets you out, as you regularly post anti-religion stuff. But I do think your overly-defensive reaction is telling. Ciao.

I do not think that's true, but even if it were the surrounding events were different. The White guy streamed his atrocity as it happened and published a manifesto explaining his motives. The Sri Lankan atrocity had several targets and perpetrators, and multiple possibilities as to who might be responsible; no handy manifesto or live streaming to help figure it out. As far as "ideology being abhorred" quickly enough, in both cases I saw the action abhorred immediately, which I think abhors the ideology behind that action, even if not explicitly stated. This argument looks to me like a make-work project for some people to feel offended that one of their own was identified as a barbaric xenophobe and islamophobe. Here is what Mediabiasfactcheck says about The Spectator: These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources. Overall, we rate The Spectator UK Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a few failed checks.

There are still a few "natural" dogs in the world. An example is the Africanis which, while it has specialized according to natural habitat, has not been changed by humans. Village/pariah dogs are also natural, in that they developed over thousands of years with minimal interference from humans. I have a pariah type dog; his genetics made him naturally cautious, very athletic and smart. While caution is a natural trait of his type, he takes it to extremes, which has been demonstrated to be a result of a lack of nutrition prior to birth, a very likely possibility given his history. He can learn a trick in about five minutes, remember it for years, but his independent streak means he may or may not repeat on command. Dogs are pretty interesting, imo. To the topic at hand, IQ is affected by so many factors that I don't think it can yet be adequately explained by genes, or by nature vs. nurture.

When someone commits an atrocity in the name of "Islam", all kinds of people jump up and down and say "why aren't all Muslims condemning this? Why are they silent?" If a Muslim person says "that's not what Islam is about", these people say "Yes it is, how dare you deny it! Reform your religion!" And when a white guy commits an atrocity in the name of "White Nationalism", the same people deny, deny, deny that it is anything to do with White people. They whine that "Too much attention is being paid to the event". They whine that they shouldn't have to be held responsible for what some nutcases do. They demand that just as much (or more) attention be paid to what "those other people" are doing. If you are going to demand that all Muslims must take responsibility and apologize for the actions of their extremists, then you should be willing to do the same when one of your extremists takes action.

Assuming you are Canadian and "fly" the Canadian flag, then you are no different than Alexandre Bissonet, Bruce McArthur, any random Canadian rapist or killer. If you pay Canadian taxes, you are no different than the murderers, rapists, thieves and pedophiles the justice system, supported by your money, regularly misjudges and allows to go free. That is your "logic", and it is wrong. If a Christian in Uganda kills a gay man because "God hates gays", does that mean that a Christian in Canada is "the same" as the killer - even if that Christian gave money that was used to support the killer's Church? What if the same Church, in Canada, accepts gay people as congregants? How do you decide that all Christians are responsible for the actions of the worst of them, while ignoring the very real good that Christian organizations do with the support of their members? I cannot do that, and prefer to focus on the wrongs of the individual instead of lumping them all under a 'flag'. The same religions, that are homophobic and misogynistic, whose members sometimes engage in violence or other wrongdoing, also do "good works" - saving lives, carrying out charitable works, striving to make humanity better. There are two sides and people choose their side, whatever "flag" they are under. People who actively fight (whether online, on the street or in an army) in support of homophobia, misogyny, jihads, child-marriages, climate change denial etc., are deserving of condemnation, I agree - that is why I can say I condemn the marchers in Charlottsville and ISIS members, pedophilic priests and the leaders who protected them, without condemning all White Christian Americans or all Muslims or all Catholics. I agree with you that many more people could do more to support humanistic ideologies, but your broad-brushing condemns too many.

Why not? Christians differ from each other, even though they all follow the Bible and believe in God. Muslims believe many different things, even though they all follow the Koran and believe in Allah. Even we on here believe very different things, even though most of us are "Canadian" and fly the same flag. Soldiers are not "everybody"; I'm ok with killing ISIS soldiers and Nazi soldiers. I'm not ok with assuming that every Muslim believes as ISIS does, or that every German is (or was) a Nazi.

Who said anything about "SS Troops"? I said this: "Campaigning against slavery or Nazis is a different concept than claiming "everybody in the South is a slave-owning A-hole and should be punished" or "All Germans are Nazis and so we must get rid of all Germans", in response to your "would you not be all in for encouraging hurting the Germans and U S south when the gains were so important and the injustice so great?"

What part of "live within the laws of Canada" is hard for you to understand? "Death penalty for blasphemy" would be breaking the law of the land, and so of course - no matter how much a Muslim might hate blasphemers, I would expect them to go to jail for killing someone for that. Generally speaking, religious belief isn't something I'm particularly impressed with - whether a Muslim's notion that blasphemers should be killed, or a Christian's notion that the death penalty for women who have abortions is a good idea. Religious people are all too willing to judge and condemn others; as long as that judgement and condemnation remains in their head, I don't care. If it's a crime, it should be punished. Doesn't matter if it's some redneck pulling the hijab off a Muslim woman, or a Muslim teen spray-painting anti-Jew graffiti on a synagogue. As for "punishment for blasphemy", it's not so uncommon among "Christian" countries, either. Among those that have legal sanctions for blasphemy are the Philippines, South Africa and Russia. Poland has legal sanctions against offending the religious feelings by publicly insulting a religious object or place, though they don't refer to it as anti-blasphemy laws. In 2014, the Netherlands abolished their blasphemy laws - which the Christian political party objected to as a 'painful loss of moral character and a symptom of a spiritual crisis". (I personally prefer Romania's law which says that " "cults, religious associations and religious groups ... must not infringe upon ... fundamental human rights and liberties".) I don't care if people criticize religion or insult God. I care when people engender hate, fear or dehumanize others. I can criticize the leaders of Islam for saying that it's "required" that women cover, when it can clearly be argued that it's not a requirement. But if I criticize the *women* who do cover as being either 1. extremist; 2. oppressed; or 3. "insulting Canadians", then I've crossed the line from criticizing the religion to dehumanizing someone by not allowing them agency - by limiting her motivations to what I think they are. If I then decide that based on the three motivations I've allowed her that I should have the right to dictate what she wears, then I've gone from simply being hateful to being oppressive. And, for the more extreme among us, it becomes acceptable to assault a woman, verbally or physically, because we disapprove of what she's wearing. I could ask you the same - do you support the right of people like me to find fault with the ones who are at fault?

People can always screw things up, even if they are politicians. Is it better for a country to be torn apart because the hateful and violent underbelly was allowed free reign in the name of 'free speech'? Or should those people be limited in their influence so the rest of us can live in safety and peace? My version of limiting hate speech also applies to Imams who preach anti-Jew rhetoric in their Mosques, btw. I don't limit my disapproval of hate to White-only, which seems to be a major concern of those who think spreading hate is an acceptable pastime. Ah, so MH was correct - no argument left, so insults it is.

Not the same thing, imo. Campaigning against slavery or Nazis is a different concept than claiming "everybody in the South is a slave-owning A-hole and should be punished" or "All Germans are Nazis and so we must get rid of all Germans". I'm interested in denying evil, but I cannot support a broad brush approach that assumes every individual in a given group is guilty. Else I'm no different than the poster who boasted about confronting two hijab-wearing women, and encouraged others to do the same - including ripping hijabs from their head.

1. It was a step for Bissonette, and a step for the NZ killer. Dismissing the very real power ideas and words have because "not everybody follows through" is either very naive or willful blindness. If words did not have the power to move people to action, politicians would not give speeches. If words did not have the power to move people to action, gofundme campaigns would never raise money. If words did not have the power to move people to action, attacks against Blacks, Muslims, Jews, Mexicans and other immigrants would not have increased after Trump's rise to power. If words did not have power to move people to action, suicide bombers would not be a feature of terrorism. In none of these examples does everybody do what the speaker wants, but enough follow through to make the idea behind the words successful. 2. Insisting on respectful speech and disallowing speech that dehumanizes other people will not do our society any harm. Otherwise, why do we try to teach our kids not to call other people names, to be respectful of others even in our speech? Because as humans, we do understand that how we speak about others reflects how we think of them and how we treat them. 3. I think you've been confused by the rhetoric that any action on stemming hateful rhetoric and dehumanizing speech will somehow affect your ability to engage in legitimate criticism of practices and behaviors that you dislike. Criticism and dehumanizing speech are different: for example, saying that "I do not believe it is necessary in Islam for women to cover themselves and I think it's important to emphasis that using the teachings of Islam" is quite different from saying "I don't want to see women with blankets over their heads, they are extremists and shouldn't be allowed in Canada".

Check this out: https://curiouscast.ca/podcast/364/russia-rising/ - especially part 3. The goal isn't to interfere to get someone elected, but to create division/dissension in Western countries. In 2015, Russian Trolls posted both pro and anti-Trudeau stuff, pro and anti-immigration, pro and anti-Muslim.

I don't believe I said they were exactly the same. I don't even recall mentioning Western countries in my comments about Sisi's message of tolerance.

Well, today I am not offended; some other days I might be. I do think that attitudes such as yours create unecessary disunity. I think in some cases, among those that suffer from mental instability, the rhetoric you support and repeat can lead to violence. I think you are blinded by bias. But I think you mean well, so not morally repugnant. On the other hand, I understand why you think that - even in real life I can be quite cutting to people who should know better. Someone I respected a great deal once said I did not suffer fools gladly. If it helps, I consider violent terrorists morally repugnant. Also, rapists and child molesters - morally repugnant. People who prey on the elderly. Parents who torture their kids. I don't even care what religion they are, or if they are no religion at all. Morally repugnant.

Perhaps I only said that there was messaging from Sisi to encourage tolerance and that I thought this a good thing. I should think that such a statement would imply that I recognized a problem, and welcomed attempts to solve it.

1. I offered up more than JWs. The sermon I linked to for example: I have no idea what particular Christian sect that is. I also mentioned my debates with Evangelicals. 2. Yes, many Christians do believe it is in their spiritual interest to limit relationships with non-believers. I have already opined that I don't think its the majority, but that it is pretty common. I have still not opined what I think the prevalence is among Muslims; its more fun to watch you wave your arms and accuse me of stuff I haven't said. 3. I have to say, amusement is my primary emotion. I don't have any reason to be offended just because you don't believe what I believe.

Its more than you think, then.

Agree. I think in large part its because of rhetoric such as that spread by DoP and Goddess and yourself. A news story about ISIS extremists throwing a gay boy off a roof is used by you and them to depict Muslims as homicidal gay-killing fanatics. Meanwhile, a newspaper story about how gay people live underground in Islamic countries, being neither killed nor turned in to authorities by friends and family, is ignored and dismissed as not represetative of Muslims at all. One gay man killed by extremists = Islam. Several gay people protected and loved by their Muslim family and friends means nothing - they're an aberration. How is this a fair and accurate depiction of Islam or Muslims? And which story is more likely to be indicative of day-to-day Islamic life? Throwing gays off rooftops or pretending they don't really exist? Until the 80s, gay-bashing and beating up gay people wasn't terribly unusual and sometimes the gay person died. Did that mean everyone in Canada wanted to kill gays? Nope, and to say so would have been completely wrong. Nonetheless, the behavior by these extremists did reflect a rather widespread societal view that gay people were unacceptable and expendable, a view I have no doubt is still pervasive in the Middle East, Africa and Russia, among other places. But to go from that to asserting that Muslims everywhere want to kill gays would be as stupid as asserting that Canadians want to kill gays because some low-life homophobic extremists killed a gay man in Vancouver in 2001. And as long as only extremists are presented as being "Muslim" there will be resistance from people who have unthinkingly accepted the hyperbolic rhetoric and are now afraid of Muslims. I personally don't much care if Canada decides to limit immigration for some good, evidence based reason. Perhaps, as you have claimed, net benefit to Canada is less than thought. But if Canada decided to limit immigration of Muslims based on the hyperbolic nonsense spouted on these forums I will object, not because Muslims are special or Islam must be protected, but because bullshit should be called out.

I did say "These Christians", intending to limit it to Christians who believe it their duty to remain separate from non-believers. Was no intention to claim "all" Christians believe that.

Agreed; we are improving. Still, if you talk to First Nations today, you'll find they disagree with you about how much we've improved. And just for the record, I think Egypt should be held to account for their lack of effective action in the treatment of Christians. If, as you say, Sisi's Christmas message was in response to international criticism, good. I have to point out, though, that he has been pretty consistent in condemning violence against Christians and has also attended Coptic services do I am inclined to believe he is trying to follow the best of Islam in this regard, instead of the worst. I support that and see no upside to dismissing or denying it. I can applaud progress while at the same time saying more needs to be done.

Yeah he has. He uses abrogation to inform those not scared enough already that any verses about peace don't count. I notice he hasn't done that since you've been around; perhaps he's worried he'll lose one of his few deluded followers. Though you seem pretty committed; maybe he'll give it a go again. You have said so in virtually every conversation we've had about it. The last statement I recall from you was "if a woman chooses to wear it as a fashion statement, I view it is a slap in the face of all the women who are forced." You said a few months ago that you weren't so concerned about protecting women's rights because you consider the hijab as an "expression of Islamic extremism" and feel its justified to ban it on that basis. I do sometimes get a little heated; more often its like today - incredulous amusement at the over-the-top response to my statement: Many religions advise their adherents to avoid unbelievers; be friendly, they say - but do not become close. Islam isn't particularly unusual in that regard.

I agree, you do know the Quran better than I do. Were I ever to convert to Islam, I would reject your version of Islam as being hateful and extreme. I would choose the version exemplified by moderate/progressive Muslims. As an atheist, however, I will just call you out as a bigot and Islamophobe.