Jump to content

We're all extremists, eventually


dialamah

Recommended Posts

Climate scientists have no expertise in power engineering or economics so they cannot provide any useful advice to governments on what policies to persue. Their expertise is limited to telling government that CO2 is a potential problem that deserves some action on the part of the government.

I wonder if you aren't discounting the expertise of climate scientists? Should the government hear the climate science community say "Too much C02 in the air is a problem", full stop? Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask what will be the long-term effects of this, how it might affect plants and animals, and people? And wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the climate experts what level of C02 is compatible with life on earth? Who should answer these questions, if not climate scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask what will be the long-term effects of this, how it might affect plants and animals, and people?

As soon as you start asking questions like this you are asking that scientists create predictive economic models that cannot be validated. Predictive economic modelling has a horrible track record even when done by qualified economists because the outputs are extremely sensitive to the assumptions which often turn out to be wrong. If climate scientists collaborated with economists and were honest about the huge uncertainties that are implicit in such models then it could be a relevant input. The trouble is that does not happen in practice.

And wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the climate experts what level of C02 is compatible with life on earth?

Sure but this is also not a policy relevant question since the number would be much higher than anything we are likely to get to.

Who should answer these questions, if not climate scientists?

Sometimes there are questions which no one can answer and we have to accept that. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As soon as you start asking questions like this you are asking that scientists create predictive economic models that cannot be validated. Predictive economic modelling has a horrible track record even when done by qualified economists because the outputs are extremely sensitive to the assumptions which often turn out to be wrong. If climate scientists collaborated with economists and were honest about the huge uncertainties that are implicit in such models then it could be a relevant input. The trouble is that does not happen in practice.

From what I've seen and read, they provide a *range* of outcomes just because they cannot predict with certainty so it's not like they're claiming some absolute outcome. And, it seems many of the climate models are accurate enough that what was predicted a few years ago is beginning to come to pass. I'm not sure how a policy of "if you aren't going to get it 100% correct, don't try at all" is particularly useful.

But I'm not an expert and I do not think you are either, so 'nuff said here, especially since we're dragging my own thread off-topic. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, it seems many of the climate models are accurate enough that what was predicted a few years ago is beginning to come to pass.

We can move to another thread but this statement is actually false. The recent trends in the temperatures were NOT predicted by the climate models 10-15 years ago and there has been considerable effort invested in figuring out why they were wrong. I also have spent a large number of hours investigating the science and know a lot more than the average person. I certainly know enough to know when a climate scientist is saying things which are not supported by the literature and I see that a lot. How can I trust a so called expert when experts frequently make statements which I know to be untrue? Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article about the way in which our society is becoming increasingly polarized.

I'm sure we've seen or experienced the other side's "hatred" of us. I admit, I've wondered why. When I arrived on this forum about a year ago, I actually believed I'd find reasoned discourse about policies and ideology on both sides of the political divide. Prior to this forum, I'd been described as apolitical by others. I didn't have strong feelings about right vs. left; I only knew that I'd supported Harper previously, but that ultimately I didn't like some of the policies that were being implemented. But I really wanted to understand both sides better, to make a better and more informed decision this time, and maybe next time as well.

But now, a year later I'm a (sneer) 'progressive', a (sneer) 'leftie', someone who doesn't care about Canada, who experiences "white liberal guilt" (I had no idea that was even a thing in August of 2015), and who sides with people who carry out brutal attacks on others.

Equally, my supposed "opponents" complain about being called racist, bigots, red-necked, un-Canadian, backwards, etc.

I'm sorry we're at this point, honestly. Is the article accurate in it's explanation of why we have become so nasty to each other? Is there any way of becoming more civil to one another - both here, and in the wider world? What do you think?

(1) Moral Universality vs Reality Politics IS about 'morality' as laws represent what a given government (management system) selects IS or IS NOT "justified" behavior. As such though, the vast majority of people regardless of affiliation, religion (or non-religion), culture, etc, ...all believe in some FIXED UNIVERSAL set of 'rights' and 'wrongs'. This is the ultimate error in rationality. As what one thinks is 'universal' competes with an other's same conviction, they falsely assume that each of us actually share the same view "at heart" but that the opponent is either intellectually stupid OR opting to do so 'knowingly', which makes them purposely deceptive or evil.

The nature of our world becoming relatively smaller and able to share various views through technology contributes by accident by demonstrating the large variety of views WITH relative proof to us that what is 'good' for one sincerely can be 'bad' for another without anyone being intrinsically at fault. But we still have not or cannot ACCEPT the relative nature of morality or that Nature itself is mute to what is or is not 'right'. This conflicts with us emotionally as it should. If there is no such justification for any one to be more right over another, we either have to

(1.1) Compete for Power regardless of any defensive consideration for 'fairness'. Some will opt to compete with extremes regardless of 'how' they do so if only to empower themselves and their arbitrary favorite people and their customs and so would select some 'posited' group to favor based on a "native" (genetic) claim to some ingroup at the expense of all others. This is the "Nationalism" that I refer to most broadly to that is less about ones actual physical place in the world but to their genetic and environmental INHERITANCES ("heritage", deriving "inheritance" relates here and why ones culture and ethnicity are also used). To those less empowered in REAL ASSETS, they focus on the claims of defending "heritage" laws based on culture as a 'right' to special laws, often as minorities; to those with more REAL ASSETS, they focus on fiscal "inheritance". Both can be 'genetic' if and where they use culture, religion, ethnicity to aid in consolidating political power here.

(1.2) Demand that there IS still a Universal Morality. To this, the favor towards extreme religious ideals simply avoid requiring to be concerned about noticing the 'relative' nature in reality that makes some suffer over others. Since they can argue that "God" can fix any injustices later anyway, even acts they would not approve of by the 'other' is acceptable as long as it stays strict to the faith in some God and so compete to FORCEFULLY impose their own brand of religion upon others. To the non-relgious/secular minded people, although they may admit of a 'relative' morality, they trade the "God" and hopes of "Paradise" to a faith in a 'future' progeny. Using arguments of assumed "altruism" as somehow genetically in us, they gamble on a form of religion of some future kind as if this is somehow any more rational.

(2) Real Economics. This is the actual cause of anyone's real concern in issues of politics. But like the morality factor, we cannot accept that we live in a FINITE world with INFINITE desires we are not willing to dismiss. As such, this factor is attempted to be most trivial over the moral factors because it most effectively PROVES that there is no intrinsic moral concern to nature.

Those with most power economically will do their best to treat economic 'freedom' maximized and foster the masses to BE more religious and extreme if only to conserve their power by the effect of competing beliefs to be excused as the 'cause' of problems, not the differences in people's wealth. Otherwise, they'd have to admit their own fortunes as the cause. They'll favor 'fundamentalist' type religions because they ARE most irrationally defensive, both for their own AND for some clear and similarly defined opponents.

Those with most power via more liberal or progressive ideals are still most empowered to those plural powers within distinct cultural, ethnic divides. This makes them ironically more restrictive to groups not represented as having 'minority' status. So the conservative Nationalism still takes root over the 'liberal' ideas here based on how power cannot be actually distributed realistically to ALL individuals regardless. So the focus is on the 'groups' that are associated with those appealing to segregation over integration.

(3) The contemporary communications media advancements that force us to REALIZE our insignificance to Nature. So do we compete by Nature (Nationalism) or against it? The 'against' part is what we "realize" now is impossible to reconcile.

We are at another relative stage in communication that is experienced at each new technological advancements, especially with regards to the Internet and Computers, and cell phones, that tends to extend more confusion and doubt when we see how morality and economy is MORE VARIABLE and IRRECONCILABLE to be 'fair' for all. It makes people uneasy feeling that we are more alone than we thought. Do we appeal to our actual selfishly derived concepts of what is 'moral', what is 'comfortable', what is 'correct'? Or do we try to insist in moral absolutism by forcing forms of specific favor to Nationalistic ideals (favoring some idea that specific kinds of 'naturally' inherent people should be the authorities to what should or should not be 'moral')? The economics are at the root of real differences. But the only way all sides are desperate to cling to when there is NO way to determine HOW to fairly distribute wealth when it seems impossible as well is to assert ones own issues are economic but the others competing against us are due to some moral distinctive indifference or hatred against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, but it isn't really necessary or even helpful when "honest" sometimes includes "nasty". Suppressing "nasty" expression on any partisan side only drives identical discourse underground. The University of Chicago has recently called for an end to the artificial safety of politically correct speech and censorship of ideas that make us uncomfortable. That is how it should be...ideas should compete...including those that are "nasty" or nastily delivered.

I agree with you in that I believe the 'etiquette' is most irrelevant and also distracts from the issue. The degree to differences where no side is more nor less correct as to what I just said above, means that there leaves less grounds for one to argue against the other on a logical basis. So the language is defaulted to require rhetoric when opposing views are 'equal' in power. But one side (usually more liberal) will favor natural truth based on non-emotional scientific ideas except for where they fail due to the contradiction of morality that doesn't exist there. As such, the rhetoric favors "etiquette" if only to treat those who use language that 'sounds' offensive can be treated as justified limits to the other's free speech. In contrast, the other side will foster using tactical rhetoric to any means necessary, also in recognition of nature's lack of concern, but FAKE a sense of moral high-ground based on something BEYOND Nature, like some "God". They don't necessarily believe in these but are using that 'any-means' mentality to justify their own actions, as if life itself was a SPORTING event. This makes those like Trump purposely use rhetoric that is ambiguous in 'legitimate' terms to entice the listener to "fill in the gaps" of what he represents. [Ambiguity example: "their" rapists OR IS IT "they're (they ARE) rapists? Intended ambiguity in context.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does nasty need to be a part of any political discourse, though? That's really my question. If someone disagrees with JT's policy on deficit spending for infrastructure and increasing child tax benefit, why should such pejoratives as 'lazy' and 'hand-outs' come into it? Why not stick to facts - perhaps demonstrating a time in history when the same policy resulted in a certain negative consequence?

"Hate" language is a relative charge and only fostered when one accuses the other of it. (If you are going to 'pay' for the accusation when not true, you may as well begin justifying it to account for the punishment you receive for it regardless.) This is why it isn't good to focus on the 'how' of one's emotionally laden charges. If it is too much for you to hear, mention so calmly, avoid confrontation to allow the other respectfully to cool off, and ONLY attend to the logic if only to set an example. We ALL get emotional at some point. To help best is to trivialize the affect it has on us OR you risk being a real contributor to the problem justifying the reactive amplification of abuse. Having laws of etiquette though is just a form of religion just as one might treat a ceremonial act they opt to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 1), that's almost impossible since the overwhelming majority of political issues are at their core moral philosophical issues. You can argue 100% true facts using statistics until you're blue in the face, but what will always matter is the outcomes that are desired as much as how to achieve them, and these desired outcomes can differ based on your ideological view.

I think this factors into 2), which I agree with. It's often very hard to know "the truth" when what is a good policy vs bad policy can often come down to your moral philosophy & desired outcomes, not just the facts supporting or undermining a position on an issue.

I agree with you on this too. Our political system IS just a form of assigning morality through laws that either favor or restrict behavior in some way for some expedient purpose. We'd need no 'new' government-forming laws if they are set in stone already through sacred scriptures (or constitutions).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all Muslims are conservative ideologues intent on using their religion to justify the repression of others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

With Christianity the words "Evangelical" or "Fundamentalist" are used to describe the same type of people. It is necessary to have to different words because it allows people to direct comments/criticisms at the Islamists that are causing the problems instead of tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

Islam has certain rules, you are a Muslim if you follow the rules and you are not a Muslim if you dont follow the rules. So we cant seperate Muslims in two groups as "the ones with conservative ideologues with the intent of using it on others as a reason for repression" and "the ones who do not do such a thing". One of them or noone of them are Muslims of these two groups, we cant say both are Muslims because both claims following the same rules. Then how come two groups performs different actions ?

"Islamist" means "a person who follows political Islam". Islamist doesn't mean "Muslims". Islamism is a political ideology, where law and policy stems from scripture and religious belief.

Muslim = "the person who follows Islamic rules in his/her life"

Islamist = "the person who follows political Islam"

Political Islam = "appliying Islamic rules in politics"

So in this case, all Muslims are "Political Islamist". (we dont have such sayings, these are western invented names about us and quite illogical names)

As a result, Islamist is a nonsense term, we cant seperate Muslims into groups.

Just wanted to say welcome to the forums and I hope you'll stick around and give us insight from your own experience.

Hey thank you.

I've been trying to tell these people the same thing, but many of them insist that it's not so.

Logic does not vary from person to person. People use their logic or reject to use their logic.

Edited by Altai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logic does not vary from person to person. People use their logic or reject to use their logic.

"Logic" doesn't care about whether what one puts into its input premises are 'true', only that IF 'true', the conclusion MUST follow (be 'true' also). With politics or any social concerns, rarely is there 'truth' to be determined without bias because what goes IN deals with one's personal interpretation of what is "good" versus "bad", "pleasurable" versus "painful". These are always emotionally biased but mistaken for the universality that I raised above in "Moral Universality versus Reality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, climate scientists may have the expertise to comment on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, however, they have no special qualifications that would allow them to comment on what policies make sense for governments to adopt.

Except, you know, a complex and in-depth knowledge about the problems and consequences posed by climate change. It's fine if you want the government informed by moron bloggers but your distrust of academic knowledge is a radical fringe position not shared by any rational person. When people have a health problem, they usually take he advice of their doctor. You're suggesting a doctor's opinion about how to handle health problems is on par with uneducated and unqualified people. You're saying, "doctors can diagnose the problem but they have no special qualifications to suggest how you should take care of yourself after the diagnosis." If you distrusted public opinion half as much as you distrusted experts, you might just be able to figure out that perhaps the people who spend their lives researching a thing may be in the best position to make suggestions about how to deal with that thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, you know, a complex and in-depth knowledge about the problems and consequences posed by climate change. It's fine if you want the government informed by moron bloggers but your distrust of academic knowledge is a radical fringe position not shared by any rational person. When people have a health problem, they usually take he advice of their doctor. You're suggesting a doctor's opinion about how to handle health problems is on par with uneducated and unqualified people. You're saying, "doctors can diagnose the problem but they have no special qualifications to suggest how you should take care of yourself after the diagnosis." If you distrusted public opinion half as much as you distrusted experts, you might just be able to figure out that perhaps the people who spend their lives researching a thing may be in the best position to make suggestions about how to deal with that thing.

Although I agree with the facts of climate change by humans as being sufficiently 'true', the actual argument of the anti-climate change concern deals with what they opt NOT to speak of considering it sounds relatively callous: that the concern to deal with the here-and-now is what they are actually defending, not to the actual facts. If you 'care' about the progeny when you lack even justification for HOW it will matter when you are NOT there to witness this in some dire future, these people actually are thinking that one should take advantage of the present conditions to its extreme when or where possible because even a comet could come along tomorrow and completely dissolve any meaning to what sacrifices we do today for some supposed future's people.

But the reason they attempt to challenge the science rather than speak the truth under consideration is for the means-to-ends factor that favors appealing to people's emotions rather than their logic. It would sound more callous to assert that you don't have concern for the future people even IF they do have certain logical foundations for THAT less popular reason. To those of a similar flock, they appeal to the religious justification of a God that will 'fix' things no matter how powerfully destructive we could be. To the rest, they simply use any tactic to dismiss the science to at least provide hopeful doubt by others as it appears 'controversial' and less certain.

[That is, I believe they are actually acting intelligently even if it 'appears' dumb for the power it serves as a lawyer opting to use highly laden emotional appealing arguments for their client when evidence is strong against them that distract from the actual evidence of a case.]

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam has certain rules, you are a Muslim if you follow the rules and you are not a Muslim if you dont follow the rules. So we cant seperate Muslims in two groups as "the ones with conservative ideologues with the intent of using it on others as a reason for repression" and "the ones who do not do such a thing". One of them or noone of them are Muslims of these two groups, we cant say both are Muslims because both claims following the same rules. Then how come two groups performs different actions ?

Muslim = "the person who follows Islamic rules in his/her life"

Islamist = "the person who follows political Islam"

Political Islam = "appliying Islamic rules in politics"

So in this case, all Muslims are "Political Islamist". (we dont have such sayings, these are western invented names about us and quite illogical names)

As a result, Islamist is a nonsense term, we cant seperate Muslims into groups.

In the West, many people are afraid of Muslims because of the terror attacks some Muslims have carried out around the world. Because not all Muslims carry out terror attacks, some of us do divide them into two groups - those who believe they are commanded by Muhammed to kill apostates and non-believers (Islamists) and those who do not (Muslims).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "Islamist" sounds awkward as it should if one used the term, "Christianist" (or , "Massiahnist" as a description of submitter to a Savior-god, similar to "Islam", submitter to one god. ). Perhaps its more appropriate to describe one who favors Islam as a political function in political law is "Islamic Nationalism" as those to Christianity as "Christian Nationalists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the West, many people are afraid of Muslims because of the terror attacks some Muslims have carried out around the world. Because not all Muslims carry out terror attacks, some of us do divide them into two groups - those who believe they are commanded by Muhammed to kill apostates and non-believers (Islamists) and those who do not (Muslims).

So now, you claim there are two group of Muslims, the ones which carry terror attacks because of their religion orders to do so and there are other part which does not carry out terror attacks despite their religion orders to do so.

Then there are about a few hundred thousand of Muslims in the World. The rest about 1,5 billion is not Muslims, they call themselves Muslims but they dont follow Islamic rules. They are not Muslims.

In this case, I am not a Muslim too, I just claim being of a Muslim but I dont follow the rules of my religion. My bad.

Edited by Altai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except, you know, a complex and in-depth knowledge about the problems and consequences posed by climate change.

Except they don't really have that knowledge. What they have are opinions that are shaped largely by their need to get funding and a desire to feel like their work is important. They don't have any facts they can communicate to policy makers. They also have no expertise that would allow policies makers to know what policies make sense given the economic and engineering constraints.

You're saying, "doctors can diagnose the problem but they have no special qualifications to suggest how you should take care of yourself after the diagnosis."

A strawman since, unlike climate scientists, doctors actually have real data they can point to whether it is double blind studies that demonstrate the efficacy of different treatments to personal observations of people who experienced the same problems in the past. Climate scientists have nothing but computer models which are tuned and manipulated to produce whatever result they feel offers the most benefits for their careers. Furthermore, doctors face legal consequences if they give bad advice. Climate scientists are free to lie and misrepresent the state of the knowledge if they think it benefits themselves personally and they face no consequences since their peers also see a benefit from the lies.

Change the legal regime so climate scientists who make untrue statements can be sued and then, and only then, should they be given the same deference as doctors. But if you did that I guarantee that climate scientists would be a lot more honest about what they don't know.

What you don't seem to understand is my contempt for climate scientists comes from seeing "scientist" after "scientist" making claims that I know to be untrue and when people try to point that out they are shouted by down by partisans who seek political benefits from the untrue statements. How many times can people lie to you before you say you don't trust anything they say even if you don't have the detailed knowledge to know that any given statement is false?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all Muslims are conservative ideologues intent on using their religion to justify the repression of others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

With Christianity the words "Evangelical" or "Fundamentalist" are used to describe the same type of people. It is necessary to have to different words because it allows people to direct comments/criticisms at the Islamists that are causing the problems instead of tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

"Evangelical" and "Fundamentalism" are often associated but mean two different things:

"Evangelical" means the belief in proselytizing or recruiting believers actively rather than passively. It also often presumes selling to ANYONE, not some specific ingroup alone.

"Fundamentalism" is the belief in some 'fundamental' faith in some strict adherence to something minimally. To most Christian 'fundamentalists' this is to the Bible as a scripture representing usually literal translation of events it depicts rather than allegory and to the assumption of it as also being inerrant of human sources or its fallibility as to its creation or culpability to fraud, etc.

The opposing views of both 'evangelical' and 'fundamentalist' Christians OR Muslims are to a 'liberal' interpretation, to acceptance of progress (allowing change or evolution in it) and to opting not to forcefully 'sell' it by insisting that others MUST believe or have consequences imposed upon them in life and/or after life.

I actually understand the concern against the liberal interpretation by fundamentalists and evangelicals: If these beliefs are open to conjecture and change, then should they also lose their status as actual religions since they reduce to being human conventions only if they can be selectively altered or updated to suit the needs of some progressive society? So, to question any religion, like Islam too, requires addressing religion as a whole OR to admit them as equals among all others just as we do with Christianity here.

Edited by Scott Mayers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Islam has certain rules, you are a Muslim if you follow the rules and you are not a Muslim if you dont follow the rules

Rules are are always subject to interpretation and prioritization. Are you really arguing that the Muslim beheading apostates in Iraq are the same as the Muslims that hold a 9-5 job in Canadian city?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now, you claim there are two group of Muslims, the ones which carry terror attacks because of their religion orders to do so and there are other part which does not carry out terror attacks despite their religion orders to do so.

Then there are about a few hundred thousand of Muslims in the World. The rest about 1,5 billion is not Muslims, they call themselves Muslims but they dont follow Islamic rules. They are not Muslims.

In this case, I am not a Muslim too, I just claim being of a Muslim but I dont follow the rules of my religion. My bad.

Have I offended you? I am only trying to explain why some of in the West think there are two groups of Muslims. I am not trying to say you are not Muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conversation can't go any further when you make ridiculous claims like this.

It is not ridiculous at all. I have no interest in paper credentials an expert has. What I want to know is how the expert got the knowledge they claim to have. If an expert gained this knowledge from experimental results that have been reproduced over and over again then I place high value on that expertise. If the expert claims knowledge from computer models which cannot be validated against real world data because of technical constraints then that knowledge is a lot less valuable. If you cannot distinguish between "experts" based on how they get their knowledge then you are really picking your experts based on your personal political preferences. My way of judging experts is a lot more rational.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, Tim. You don't believe that expertise has any merit. You are a radical skeptic when it comes to knowledge and the vast majority of reasonable people disagree with your position. People learn from experience. Someone who dedicates their life to studying a thing is going to know a hell of a lot more about that thing than anyone else. If you don't think they can make suggestions related to whatever that thing is, then I don't know what to tell you. If experts don't have any more credibility than blogs, then there's no basis for discussion whatsoever. Literally anything anyone says is equally valid. Not only is that not true, but it's a dangerously stupid position to hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't believe that expertise has any merit.

Expertise has merit went it is derived from independently verifiable results.

Someone who dedicates their life to studying a thing is going to know a hell of a lot more about that thing than anyone else.

They also have a huge incentive to interpret ambiguous information in ways that add meaning to the thing they have dedicated their life too. Every expert has a fundamental conflict of interest where they cannot give advice that undermines their life's work. That is why source of the expert's knowledge matters so much. Experts who are forced to reconcile their beliefs with the real world are much more reliable than experts who only work with simulations that are never meaningfully tested against the real world. Not all experts are equal no matter what you would like to believe.

If experts don't have any more credibility than blogs, then there's no basis for discussion whatsoever.

You are, yet again, misrepresenting what I said. What I said was experts can only advise within the narrow domain related to the expertise. The opinion of a climate scientist on the merits solar panels or nuclear power *IS* worth no more than a blogger. Similarly, a fruit fly biologist has no special expertise that would allow them to comment on the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules are are always subject to interpretation and prioritization. Are you really arguing that the Muslim beheading apostates in Iraq are the same as the Muslims that hold a 9-5 job in Canadian city?

Rules does not vary from person to person, this is why they are called as "rule". Because they clarify a situation, they make something clear to do or not to do.

You need to decide which one is Muslim ? The one kill people because of their religion order them to do so or the ones works 9-5 as an ordinary person. If you cant claim both is Muslim, this means both follow the same rules, then they have to act same. Here the contradiction in your perspective. I can find millions of such contradictions in the perspective about Muslims of non-Muslim countries.

Edited by Altai
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...