Guest Posted December 16, 2015 Report Posted December 16, 2015 It's a different kind of killing Hudson, when it's christians killing christians. The killing from the Muslims that we are targeting is "Muslims killing every other group or culture they come in contact with specifically because they aren't Muslims." Where you find evidence of Christians all over the world going around and killing men, women and children just because they aren't christian you have found a good comparison. Especially as they aren't really killing them because they are told to do so by their Christian God. It's a nonsense comparison. However, I would challenge your contention that Muslims kill people because they are not Muslim. Those that do kill people tend to kill far more for being the wrong kind of Muslim, than they do for not being Muslim at all.
Argus Posted December 16, 2015 Report Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) Those who like to say Christians have killed more people than Muslims simply demonstrate how narrow their historical world-view is. They know nothing about the Islamic invasions which swept Islam through the middle east, into India and Europe, and frankly, don't care. It's easier to just say "Duh well, duh that Hitler guy, he killed more than the religion of peace!" As if Hitler was some kind of Christian warrior on a crusade. But let's take just one area of the world as a counter example, shall we. Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during the Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million. https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/ Edited December 16, 2015 by Argus "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Charles Anthony Posted December 16, 2015 Report Posted December 16, 2015 Guys, Canada is not even 150 years old yet. Please keep the discussion focussed. We do not have time for a meeting of the flat earth society. << Où sont mes amis ? Ils sont ici, ils sont ici... >>
Argus Posted December 16, 2015 Report Posted December 16, 2015 Guys, Canada is not even 150 years old yet. Please keep the discussion focussed. As I said earlier, the entire focus of this topic is 'Islamophobia' which means we have to determine what the word means in this context. A phobia is an unreasoning, unreasonable fear of something. If people are justified in having, perhaps not a fear, but a wariness about this religion, then there is no phobia. The history of this religion is thus pertinent, especially as others keep bringing up Christian violence from historical times. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
eyeball Posted December 16, 2015 Report Posted December 16, 2015 Guys, Canada is not even 150 years old yet. Please keep the discussion focussed. Thanks for focussing the moderation. I for one think this is the real direction moderation should take. Am I to believe that when there finally is a peace process, that the experts and luminaries assigned to that process will slog their way back and forth through history the way people do around here? I can't think of anything that will make the task of finding peace more impossible which leads me to conclude that's why people do it. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
WestCanMan Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 As I said earlier, the entire focus of this topic is 'Islamophobia' which means we have to determine what the word means in this context. A phobia is an unreasoning, unreasonable fear of something. If people are justified in having, perhaps not a fear, but a wariness about this religion, then there is no phobia. The history of this religion is thus pertinent, especially as others keep bringing up Christian violence from historical times.Agreed. Just because Canada is ony 150 years old doesn't mean that we need to forget about everything before that. The Muslims are still using the same Koran they've always used. They don't have a new testament, and the topic of jihad still excites a certain % of the population. If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. Bug-juice is the new Kool-aid. Ex-Canadian since April 2025
On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 Agreed. Just because Canada is ony 150 years old doesn't mean that we need to forget about everything before that. The Muslims are still using the same Koran they've always used. They don't have a new testament, and the topic of jihad still excites a certain % of the population. And so since you seem to think you know all about it, please tell us what percentage, your obviously scrupulous research has revealed.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 And so since you seem to think you know all about it, please tell us what percentage, your obviously scrupulous research has revealed. It doesn't matter what the percent is, just so long as one only has contempt for, and is disgusted by, them, and not the rest.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 It doesn't matter what the percent is, just so long as one only has contempt for, and is disgusted by, them, and not the rest.I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 I have no idea what that statement is supposed to mean. It means, it doesn't matter what percentage of Muslims, or any religion for that matter, do repulsive things and have repulsive beliefs, values, etc, as long as one takes care only to be repulsed by them. And not the rest.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 It means, it doesn't matter what percentage of Muslims, or any religion for that matter, do repulsive things and have repulsive beliefs, values, etc, as long as one takes care only to be repulsed by them. And not the rest. So your thoughts apply to all religions then.
eyeball Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) . Edited December 17, 2015 by eyeball A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 It means, it doesn't matter what percentage of Muslims, or any religion for that matter, do repulsive things and have repulsive beliefs, values, etc, as long as one takes care only to be repulsed by them. And not the rest. Sounds good in theory. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 So your thoughts apply to all religions then. Are you kidding? Of course they do.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 Sounds good in theory. I know, right? That's why I can't figure out the whole Islamophobia thing.
eyeball Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 I know, right? That's why I can't figure out the whole Islamophobia thing. I have a hard time believing that but for what it's worth people who are neutral can't figure it out either. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) I have a hard time believing that but for what it's worth people who are neutral can't figure it out either. A hard time believing what? That I can't figure out why people would hate Muslims indiscriminately when there are so many who are worthy of hate? I can't. You can take that to the bank. Edited December 17, 2015 by bcsapper
On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 A hard time believing what? That I can't figure out why people would hate Muslims indiscriminately when there are so many who are worthy of hate? I can't. You can take that to the bank.Classic description of phobia. Take that to the bank.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 Classic description of phobia. Take that to the bank. I know. That's what I can't understand.
eyeball Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 A hard time believing what? That I can't figure out why people would hate Muslims indiscriminately when there are so many who are worthy of hate? I can't. You can take that to the bank. How many exactly, and when do we reach the % at which indiscriminate hate and fear is acceptable? I have a hard time believing you can't provide a tangible answer that might determine that. If you could I bet Euler could come up with a formula and a way to model this so we can dispense with phobias about the unknown and deal with the known. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 I know. That's what I can't understand. Banks deal with numbers all the time especially percentages. And they even know a little about risk too. Maybe they know the answer. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 How many exactly, and when do we reach the % at which indiscriminate hate and fear is acceptable? I have a hard time believing you can't provide a tangible answer that might determine that. If you could I bet Euler could come up with a formula and a way to model this so we can dispense with phobias about the unknown and deal with the known. We'd I'm sure get a few pages out of that little exercise.
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) How many exactly, and when do we reach the % at which indiscriminate hate and fear is acceptable? I have a hard time believing you can't provide a tangible answer that might determine that. If you could I bet Euler could come up with a formula and a way to model this so we can dispense with phobias about the unknown and deal with the known. Indiscriminate hate and fear is only acceptable at 100%, so the answer would be never. Seems reasonable, right? As to the other question, one can't know an individual's beliefs until after one sees evidence, so actual numbers are impossible to determine. Just hate the bad ones, and you can't go wrong. Edited December 17, 2015 by bcsapper
Argus Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 Indiscriminate hate and fear is only acceptable at 100%, so the answer would be never. Seems reasonable, right? So let's put this in context. Say you were going to buy a car, and found out 90% of those cars blow up when they hit a curb. Would you just say to yourself "Well I have no intention of discriminating against this particular car just because 90% of this model blows up when it hits a curb. I'm buying it! Sure, that other model there costs the same and never blows up, but I can't just assume this is one of the ones that blows up for that would be discrimination! "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted December 17, 2015 Report Posted December 17, 2015 How many exactly, and when do we reach the % at which indiscriminate hate and fear is acceptable? I have a hard time believing you can't provide a tangible answer that might determine that. I don't think 'indiscriminate fear and hatred' is acceptable. That doesn't mean I don't think wariness and doubt are unacceptable. When the polls tell us 88% of Egyptians feel anyone who dares to try to leave Islam should be executed I feel this is sufficient cause for me to doubt the sophistication and tolerance of your average Egyptian. "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts