This week in Islam

[Argus]

Just now, bcsapper said:

It's the only argument there is when a man is killed for a blasphemous statement issued more than a decade earlier. Unless one actually wants to admit that there is something seriously ****** up with that religion, country and culture.  And we can't have that.

So, white people!

Especially if one is a devoted proponent of unrestricted immigration.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

1) Nobody has ever suggested all white people are perfect.

 

2) In fact, the only people who ever talk about race, aside from one individual, are the people who are on the hard left of most political issues.

3) And if Pakistan, the subject of the cite above, weren't among our top source countries for immigrants, or at least if we bothered to screen who comes here from there it wouldn't concern me an so many others. But the Left adores foreign cultures as much as they hate ours.

4) As for starting 1000 threads. At least I base them on reality,

5) and not the lunatic ravings of the psychologically damaged, like most of the threads you guys seem to love these days. Hey, how about another one about the evil Americans and the vile west causing genocide all over the world? Maybe another on the glories of Turkey?

1) You must think so or we would have at least 1% of the threads where you crap all over Muslims saying *something* bad about white people.  Do you have any idea how dull it is to see such posts month after month ?  What are you hoping to achieve ?  People in Pakistan reading these threads and saying "Let's not come to Canada ?".  Seriously.

2) Yes, maybe you should criticize the left then.  Oh wait.  You do, and in fact you make up false associations between them and Muslims all the time saying politicians march in lockstep to satisfy them.  

3) The left again.

4) Reality requires objectivity and if you were objective or at least strived for objectivity then #1 above would not be a concern.

5) "You guys" ... this is a grouping in your mind, no idea what you are trying to do here.  I have posted in praise of America and have done so in the past few days also.  Like your grouping of Muslims into one group you feel a need to be intellectually lazy and make another group based on unknown factors here.

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's the only argument there is when a man is killed for a blasphemous statement issued more than a decade earlier. Unless one actually wants to admit that there is something seriously ****** up with that religion, country and culture.  And we can't have that.

So, white people!

 

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

.  Like your grouping of Muslims into one group you feel a need to be intellectually lazy and make another group based on unknown factors here.

 

I was wrong.  It's not the only argument.  There are two.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's the only argument there is when a man is killed for a blasphemous statement issued more than a decade earlier. Unless one actually wants to admit that there is something seriously ****** up with that religion, country and culture.  And we can't have that.

So, white people!

Do you know what other cultures say about Western culture ?

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Do you know what other cultures say about Western culture ?

No idea.  Do you think they mean all of us when they do say things about Western culture, or do they just talk about the barbaric bits?

I would hate to think they were tarring me, after all.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

No idea.  

Ok - so culture A criticizes culture B and vice versa.  Neither side cares about what the other has to say.  What is the point ?  And why is it fodder for discussion ?

It's endless, and pointless.

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Ok - so culture A criticizes culture B and vice versa.  Neither side cares about what the other has to say.  What is the point ?  And why is it fodder for discussion ?

It's endless, and pointless.

We're all endless.  Pointless is up to the individual, but why should there ever be an end to discussion?

What part of my view of the killings for blasphemy do you disagree with?

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) You must think so or we would have at least 1% of the threads where you crap all over Muslims saying *something* bad about white people.  Do you have any idea how dull it is to see such posts month after month ?  What are you hoping to achieve ?  People in Pakistan reading these threads and saying "Let's not come to Canada ?".  Seriously.

Speaking of objectivity. Do you think your own position in favor of unrestricted immigration might be influencing your 'boredom' of these threads? Maybe your irritability comes from you lack of a coherent counter-argument for your own position.

You know, it's impossible to have many threads about a particular topic if a lot of people don't want to talk about those topics. I think one of the reasons people want to talk about it is that the progressive set in the media and government have shut down all such conversations with blanket condemnations against anyone who opposes immigration or who believes we should retarget our immigration. Are you in media, by chance? I'm sure you'd fit in very well with their enforced lockstep thinking on the subject.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Yes, maybe you should criticize the left then.  Oh wait.  You do, and in fact you make up false associations between them and Muslims all the time saying politicians march in lockstep to satisfy them.  

I don't make anything up. The defense of Islam, the refusal to condemn any of its crude, barbaric tenets AS PRACTICED AROUND THE WORLD only shows how two-faced most on the Left are. Douglas Murray got this complaint at a panel and he said well, why would we not talk about it. Polls have shown huge numbers of people have a lot of concerns about it. Concerns over immigration caused Brexit and got Donald Trump elected and might well get Marie Le Pen elected. Those concerns were mocked and ignored and sneered at by people very much of your mentality until something or someone came along that allowed the people to express their views, and that's where we're headed in Canada.

The evidence politicians march in lockstep is pretty damned obvious when all media and all politicians condemned Kelly Lietch's suggestion that we test immigrants for values even though repeated polls showed three quarters of Canadians approved of the idea.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) The left again.

4) Reality requires objectivity and if you were objective or at least strived for objectivity then #1 above would not be a concern.

No one is terribly objective, most especially including you on this subject.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

5) "You guys" ... this is a grouping in your mind, no idea what you are trying to do here. 

This forum has become, over the past year, a protected bastion of loony tunes, and most of the new topics are on various nutty ideas and beliefs. And I've seen no complaints from you on that score.

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

1) We're all endless.  Pointless is up to the individual, but why should there ever be an end to discussion?

2) What part of my view of the killings for blasphemy do you disagree with?

1) Well what do you see as the point of complaining to people who will never listen or get the message, just as you are with respect to their complaints ?

2) I didn't say I disagreed.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Well what do you see as the point of complaining to people who will never listen or get the message, just as you are with respect to their complaints ?

2) I didn't say I disagreed.

You seem to be suggesting keeping quiet about things we have no control over.  No complaints about Islam, Trump, Brexit, the Blue Jays, AGW, etc.  Where's the fun in that?

If you agree, is it just the fact that Islam itself isn't going to pay the blindest bit of notice to my post that bothers you about it?

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Speaking of objectivity. Do you think your own position in favor of unrestricted immigration might be influencing your 'boredom' of these threads? Maybe your irritability comes from you lack of a coherent counter-argument for your own position.

2) You know, it's impossible to have many threads about a particular topic if a lot of people don't want to talk about those topics. I think one of the reasons people want to talk about it is that the progressive set in the media and government have shut down all such conversations with blanket condemnations against anyone who opposes immigration or who believes we should retarget our immigration. Are you in media, by chance? I'm sure you'd fit in very well with their enforced lockstep thinking on the subject.

3) I don't make anything up. The defense of Islam, the refusal to condemn any of its crude, barbaric tenets AS PRACTICED AROUND THE WORLD only shows how two-faced most on the Left are. Douglas Murray got this complaint at a panel and he said well, why would we not talk about it. Polls have shown huge numbers of people have a lot of concerns about it. Concerns over immigration caused Brexit and got Donald Trump elected and might well get Marie Le Pen elected. Those concerns were mocked and ignored and sneered at by people very much of your mentality until something or someone came along that allowed the people to express their views, and that's where we're headed in Canada.

The evidence politicians march in lockstep is pretty damned obvious when all media and all politicians condemned Kelly Lietch's suggestion that we test immigrants for values even though repeated polls showed three quarters of Canadians approved of the idea.

4) No one is terribly objective, most especially including you on this subject.

5) This forum has become, over the past year, a protected bastion of loony tunes, and most of the new topics are on various nutty ideas and beliefs. And I've seen no complaints from you on that score.

1) I'm not in favour of 'unrestricted' immigration, just more open.  No I don't think my opinion influences my boredom.   I have counter argued plenty.

2) The 'talk' doesn't really progress, which is why I find it boring.  "Lockstep" is subjective... the anti-immigration folks invented that but it was called the "goose step"

3) You completely stroll past my point about objectivity and the lack of reflexivity in criticizing other cultures.

4) I'm not claiming to be objective but I am at least trying to move the discussion towards something more objective, different and interesting.

5) Also interesting as I hear this more from people on the other side of the spectrum.  Of course I have complained about those too but that's off topic.

How can we make criticism across cultures - objectively - into a discussion and not just cranky plaints ?  If you don't want to have that, then so be it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

1) You seem to be suggesting keeping quiet about things we have no control over.  No complaints about Islam, Trump, Brexit, the Blue Jays, AGW, etc.  Where's the fun in that?

2) If you agree, is it just the fact that Islam itself isn't going to pay the blindest bit of notice to my post that bothers you about it?

1) Wrong.  Read my posts again.

2) I am clearly talking on both sides here.  You can't have a one sided discussion.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Wrong.  Read my posts again.

2) I am clearly talking on both sides here.  You can't have a one sided discussion.

I did.  I stand by mine. 

What sides are you taking?  Killing someone for what they say is wrong.  That's one side.  What is the other?

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) I'm not in favour of 'unrestricted' immigration, just more open.

You have stated in the past you would like anyone who wants to live here to be able to come and live here, have you not?

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) You completely stroll past my point about objectivity and the lack of reflexivity in criticizing other cultures.

I believe there is a single point of reference in terms of morality, and that being justice. That foreign cultures don't embrace this view is not going to endear them to me nor respect them for a differing viewpoint. There is no social understanding which will convince me that hanging teenage girls because they had sex, or beating someone to death for blaspheme is acceptable practice.

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4) I'm not claiming to be objective but I am at least trying to move the discussion towards something more objective, different and interesting.

I did try to move the latest immigration topic towards understanding the underlying emotional responses and biases behind the opposing sides on immigration but most people seem to just want to talk about the pros and cons of immigration.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

What sides are you taking?  Killing someone for what they say is wrong.  That's one side.  What is the other?

That's not the side.  Read the thread title.  If you were talking about an individual then maybe that would be the side but this thread is about blaming a group.  That's also fine, if there's a way to do so productively.  

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's not the side.  Read the thread title.  If you were talking about an individual then maybe that would be the side but this thread is about blaming a group.  That's also fine, if there's a way to do so productively.  

The thread title is "This Week in Islam".  What part of my post does not apply?  What part of it is not productive?  Given that I'm not going to bring the poor fellow back, nor save the next poor fellow.  I just posted it for discussion on here, and as such, it seem productive enough.

Edited April 22, 2017 by bcsapper

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's not the side.  Read the thread title.  If you were talking about an individual then maybe that would be the side but this thread is about blaming a group.  That's also fine, if there's a way to do so productively.  

Why is it wrong to blame a group unless it's 'productive'? According to the cite murderous mobs attack anyone even suspected of blaspheme. That is not an individual action but an indication of a desperate failing and fanaticism on the part of an entire society. Why should that not be condemned?

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

1) You have stated in the past you would like anyone who wants to live here to be able to come and live here, have you not?

2) I believe there is a single point of reference in terms of morality, and that being justice. That foreign cultures don't embrace this view is not going to endear them to me nor respect them for a differing viewpoint. There is no social understanding which will convince me that hanging teenage girls because they had sex, or beating someone to death for blaspheme is acceptable practice.

3) I did try to move the latest immigration topic towards understanding the underlying emotional responses and biases behind the opposing sides on immigration but most people seem to just want to talk about the pros and cons of immigration.

 

 

1) Yes, but not without any restrictions.  I would like open borders with conditions and regulation.

2) Sentence 1 starts with principles with objectives.  In sentence 2 you step towards blaming another culture which means you are putting your culture in a place where you are the 'normal' and all others below you.  There are many objective advantages to your culture but your POV can't sustain productive discussion.

3) Yes, and I found that thread interesting initally although as you point out most want to drag the discussion back again.  Keep trying.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

The thread title is "This Week in Islam".  What part of my post does not apply?

The topic is not "Killing someone for what they say is wrong. " It's about blaming a group, generally.

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

1) Why is it wrong to blame a group unless it's 'productive'?  

2) That is not an individual action but an indication of a desperate failing and fanaticism on the part of an entire society. Why should that not be condemned?

1) "Wrong" is fraught with problems, as a word.  It's one-dimensional, uninteresting and exempts your point of view from having its own flaws.  

2) Mob violence is pretty tough to defend.  But also a no-brainer to criticize.  Are there deeper insights to be made about one culture vs another ?  I would like to read those.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The topic is not "Killing someone for what they say is wrong. " It's about blaming a group, generally.

I have to say that's the most disingenuous argument I've heard in a long time.  There is a reason they killed him.  It wasn't just that their parachutes failed to open and they landed on the poor sod.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Yes, but not without any restrictions.  I would like open borders with conditions and regulation.

It would still result in swamping our own culture and displacing it and our values.

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Sentence 1 starts with principles with objectives.  In sentence 2 you step towards blaming another culture which means you are putting your culture in a place where you are the 'normal' and all others below you.  There are many objective advantages to your culture but your POV can't sustain productive discussion.

I have no idea where you're going with this fixation on 'productive' discussion. This is merely an internet web site for open discussion on a variety of political issues. It's not here to solve the world's problems. It's particularly not possible to encompass the lack of justice in the Muslim world in a single discussion and propose alternatives to it other than ignoring the tenets of Islam. 

No one seems to have an issue with broadly condemning our society or all of western society over issues of unfairness which impact minorities or the disabled or whatnot, even thought our societies have, at least, been attempting to remedy those issues for some time. Why should I not wholeheartedly condemn another society with far worse issues it makes no attempt at redressing? I see no productive way to 'see' an issue like beating people to death for blasphemy from the cultural context of a religious fanatic. How would that even be possible?

 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The topic is not "Killing someone for what they say is wrong. " It's about blaming a group, generally.

But the group, generally, seems to be at fault.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I have to say that's the most disingenuous argument I've heard in a long time.  There is a reason they killed him.   

Ok, now you are starting to understand what the thread is about.  Go ahead and discuss your reason, but as you live the principles nobody from said group will listen.  Instead you will have a bunch of people from your culture agreeing with each other.  It's discussion, by definition, but not engaging.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

But the group, generally, seems to be at fault.

How would you prefer to discuss group faults including those of your own group ?