This month in Christianity/Atheism/Judaism/Asia and Far East Religions/New religious movements

[OftenWrong]

19 hours ago, Rue said:

I would argue that renders the dialogue purile, petulant, childish, hateful, and  pointless. because nothing but insults or name calling is solicited by  using such a premises for dialogue.

 

 

 

 

Wow, you're a cunning linguist!

[dialamah]

On 11/30/2016 at 1:30 PM, betsy said:

Too bad, political correctness doesn't identify the perpetrator's races and religious affiliation.

Agree.  If every act of barbarous violence were described with the perpetrators race/religion, there'd be an awful lot of white Caucasian/Christian perpetrators in Canada/US/Britain/etc. and an awful lot of brown Caucasian/Muslim names in the Middle Eastern/African/Asian regions of the world.   Funny how that works.

 

[dialamah]

21 hours ago, Rue said:

The entire premises of the dialogue I have read from Altai appears to be an opportunity for Altai to  insult people who believe  in the religions listed in the heading  by Altai , because Altai  believes followers of these religions listed  insult  Muslims the way she now insults Christians and atheists, etc.

I would argue that renders the dialogue purile, petulant, childish, hateful, and  pointless. because nothing but insults or name calling is solicited by  using such a premises for dialogue.

 

 

 

 

I thought the same of the topic started by Kimmy "This week in Islam".

 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

I thought the same of the topic started by Kimmy "This week in Islam".

 

No, the "This week in Islam" thread is there to post about egregious, barbaric acts actually carried out in the name of Islam, along with any notable act in the other direction, also carried out by Muslims, to try and mitigate the horror.

This thread was created in a fit of pique by someone who refuses to acknowledge that her religion alone is responsible for the vast majority of the brutality being perpetrated in religions's name these days, in an attempt to associate any crime committed by a non Muslim, with their religion, no matter how baseless that association might be.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

49 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No, the "This week in Islam" thread is there to post about egregious, barbaric acts actually carried out in the name of Islam, along with any notable act in the other direction, also carried out by Muslims, to try and mitigate the horror.

This thread was created in a fit of pique by someone who refuses to acknowledge that her religion alone is responsible for the vast majority of the brutality being perpetrated in religions's name these days, in an attempt to associate any crime committed by a non Muslim, with their religion, no matter how baseless that association might be.

What does *religion* have to do with it?    Sometimes non-Muslim men pick up women, rape them, cut them up and feed them to pigs; is that less barbarous because it's not based on 'religion'?   The US government is responsible for torturing people in the name of 'security'; is that a better reason than religion?   Western drones kill and maim innocent men, women and children in Syria; is that less barbarous because we're on the side of 'deomocracy'?   

Kimmy's thread demonizes Muslims; that's its reason d'etre.   It's purpose is to focus on the criminal, immoral and barbaric acts performed by a small segment of the world's Muslims while ignoring the criminal, immoral and barbaric acts performed by everyone outside that small group.     The people buying into that thread are smug and arrogant in their self-righteousness; they belong to the 'elites'; the Muslims belong to the 'deplorables'.      

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, dialamah said:

What does *religion* have to do with it?    Sometimes non-Muslim men pick up women, rape them, cut them up and feed them to pigs; is that less barbarous because it's not based on 'religion'?   The US government is responsible for torturing people in the name of 'security'; is that a better reason than religion?   Western drones kill and maim innocent men, women and children in Syria; is that less barbarous because we're on the side of 'deomocracy'?   

Kimmy's thread demonizes Muslims; that's its reason d'etre.   It's purpose is to focus on the criminal, immoral and barbaric acts performed by a small segment of the world's Muslims while ignoring the criminal, immoral and barbaric acts performed by everyone outside that small group.     The people buying into that thread are smug and arrogant in their self-righteousness; they belong to the 'elites'; the Muslims belong to the 'deplorables'.      

Hardly.  The "elites" are the ones who won't use the word "Islam" when describing an attack by Islamic extremists.

Religion has everything to do with it.  Without religion there would be no act for that thread.  Sometimes Muslim men pick up women, rape them, cut them up and feed them to pigs, but if they did it for reasons other than their God told them to do it, then they can occupy another thread.  The thread isn't there to demonize Muslims.  It's there to demonize those Muslims who demonize Islam.  That this thread is such a failure shows that, currently, Islam is diferent from all the rest.

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

if they did it for reasons other than their God told them to do it, then they can occupy another thread.  

Such as a mental health thread perhaps ?

The substance of this argument is exactly what you and dialamah (and others) have been discussing for years:

Why/when/how to ascribe behaviours of individuals to a group.  

It's a tough discussion, which is why we've been at it for years.

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Such as a mental health thread perhaps ?

The substance of this argument is exactly what you and dialamah (and others) have been discussing for years:

Why/when/how to ascribe behaviours of individuals to a group.  

It's a tough discussion, which is why we've been at it for years.

The group is usually Islam.  There is a reason for that.  There are a lot of groups that contain people whose behaviour might be questionable, but only one comes to mind that is both over a billion strong, and responsible for some of the most extreme behaviour seen today.  I feel for those Muslims who just want to get on with their lives with a little worshipping when time allows.  I really do.  It must be awful to turn on the radio everyday.

[Michael Hardner]

Quote

There is a reason for that.  There are a lot of groups that contain people whose behaviour might be questionable, but only one comes to mind that is both over a billion strong, and responsible for some of the most extreme behaviour seen today.  

I accept they are a billion strong and responsible for extreme behaviour but the reason you allude to has never been argued here, I don't think.  At least, no reason has been discussed to a point where a majority of MLW participants buy into the reasoning.

[dialamah]

16 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Hardly.  The "elites" are the ones who won't use the word "Islam" when describing an attack by Islamic extremists.

 

Consider how the 'deplorables' are described - ignorant, conservative, uneducated, sexist, racist, given to prejudice, hate and violence.   How are the elites described?  Out-of-touch, convinced of their 'rightness', unwilling to listen, to compromise, or to recognize a different point of view.

How are Muslims described?  "Ignorant, conservative, uneducated, sexist, racist, engaging in hate and violence".   How would Muslims describe us?   Check the Pew Research Argus posted a while ago, and you'll see terms surprisingly similar to how 'elites' are described.

Quote

 The thread isn't there to demonize Muslims.  It's there to demonize those Muslims who demonize Islam.  That this thread is such a failure shows that, currently, Islam is diferent from all the rest.

Yeah, that thread is there to demonize Muslims.  Possibly not Kimmy's intent, but the lack of balance and the inability to even consider that we, as a group, are no less violent and barbaric than Muslims as a group is the giveaway.   

I and many others have said many times that Islamic Extremism is a problem and that Islamic extremists carry out horrific attacks and should certainly have to answer for the crimes.   But Islamaphobes don't hear it because what they want us to say is "Islam is evil and every Muslim is a risk".  

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by dialamah

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I accept they are a billion strong and responsible for extreme behaviour but the reason you allude to has never been argued here, I don't think.  At least, no reason has been discussed to a point where a majority of MLW participants buy into the reasoning.

I'm not sure I follow.  The reason is what you said you accept, and it is argued every day on here.

[Michael Hardner]

Muslims are responsible for extreme behaviour but so is every group.  If the existence of Islamic terrorism is proof enough for you to blame the religion itself for causing violence then I guess we are at the end of that thread of discussion.

---

My argument against that line of thinking is that it equates observation with causation.  There are plenty of counter examples where you can show that this line of thinking is flawed.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Consider how the 'deplorables' are described - ignorant, conservative, uneducated, sexist, racist, given to prejudice, hate and violence.   How are the elites described?  Out-of-touch, convinced of their 'rightness', unwilling to listen, to compromise, or to recognize a different point of view.

How are Muslims described?  "Ignorant, conservative, uneducated, sexist, racist, engaging in hate and violence".   How would Muslims describe us?   Check the Pew Research Argus posted a while ago, and you'll see terms surprisingly similar to how 'elites' are described.

Yeah, that thread is there to demonize Muslims.  Possibly not Kimmy's intent, but the lack of balance and the inability to even consider that we, as a group, are no less violent and barbaric than Muslims is the giveaway.   

I and many others have said many times that Islamic Extremism is the problem and that Islamic extremists carry out horrific attacks and should certainly have to answer for the crimes.   But Islamaphobes don't hear it because what they want us to say is "Islam is evil and every Muslim is a risk".  

 

The deplorables was a racist term coined by an elitist which backfired big time for her.  Ignorant, conservative, uneducated, sexist, racist, given to prejudice, hate and violence does not describe most of the people she was talking about, but it does describe some of them.  It does not describe most Muslims, but it does describe some. The evidence that it describes more Muslims than any members of another religion is seen every day.  I believe today's entry was a Christian church in Egypt, but I've only heard the headline.

The thread is possible, and justified, because of such action, along with the equally disturbing but less newsworthy tenets surrounding homosexuality, apostasy and blasphemy.

 

[dialamah]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

The group is usually Islam.  There is a reason for that.  There are a lot of groups that contain people whose behaviour might be questionable, but only one comes to mind that is both over a billion strong, and responsible for some of the most extreme behaviour seen today.  I feel for those Muslims who just want to get on with their lives with a little worshipping when time allows.  I really do.  It must be awful to turn on the radio everyday.

There is another group that comes to mind, for me: men.   White men, brown men, black men, yellow men.   I hear every day about some new crime a person from the "man" group has perpetrated against a person of the "woman" group or "child" group.  I'm a woman, so I know that *some* men can be dangerous to me, more dangerous than another woman or a child be would.   These crimes far outweigh the crimes of Islamic extremists in terms of number, and certainly could match them for barbarity, but how would it go over if I started a thread called "This week in Male-dom", and started detailing all the news stories of the crimes a small group of men commit.

Edited December 12, 2016 by dialamah

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Muslims are responsible for extreme behaviour but so is every group.  If the existence of Islamic terrorism is proof enough for you to blame the religion itself for causing violence then I guess we are at the end of that thread of discussion.

---

My argument against that line of thinking is that it equates observation with causation.  There are plenty of counter examples where you can show that this line of thinking is flawed.

Good heavens.  After all this time you still want to play the "all Muslims" card?  That's the end of the discussion for sure.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not playing that card.  I'm saying that the substance if the discussion is whether a certain religion causes behaviours or not.

If we are just bringing up the fact that Islamic terrorism exists, then why ?  Nobody is really arguing that it doesn't exist are they ?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

There is another group that comes to mind, for me: men.   White men, brown men, black men, yellow men.   I hear every day about some new crime a person from the "man" group has perpetrated against a person of the "woman" group or "child" group.  I'm a woman, so I know that *some* men can be dangerous to me, more dangerous than another woman or a child would.   These crimes far outweigh the crimes of Islamic extremists, but how would it go over if I started a thread called "This week in Male-dom", and started detailing all the news stories of the crimes a small group of men commit.

I think such things exist.  Ever read the Guardian?  Actually, most mainstream media is constantly commenting on such things.  Start a thread.  As a father of daughters and a husband to a wife I'll join in.  I'll also take every opportunity to defend my sex when it is unfairly maligned.  If you ever think someone posts lies about Islam please defend the religion. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I'm not playing that card.  I'm saying that the substance if the discussion is whether a certain religion causes behaviours or not.

If we are just bringing up the fact that Islamic terrorism exists, then why ?  Nobody is really arguing that it doesn't exist are they ?

Religion never did anything.  People do things.  If they do them due to their religion then that's the reason they do them.  No-one ever got executed for blasphemy for deriding Mickey Mouse.  No-one ever got shot for drawing him either.

I don't think anyone argues about existence.  They argue about motive, purpose, reason, intention, stuff like that.

[dialamah]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 I'll also take every opportunity to defend my sex when it is unfairly maligned.  If you ever think someone posts lies about Islam please defend the religion. 

I do, often.   And in return I get called names, accused of supporting misogyny, the killing of homosexuals and apostates, pedophilia, and barbarism.   Argus and DoP are completely out of touch on this topic, and a few others aren't far behind.   Every single time DoP quotes, out of context, some Quranic verse about violence, I point out the verses that are opposed to violence and and preach peace and tolerance - which the vast majority of Muslims follow - but that doesn't matter.   Many on here, including you, think that the very few terrorists, relative to all Muslims worldwide, are somehow defining of Islam as a whole.  

Edited December 12, 2016 by dialamah

[Michael Hardner]

I like to tie individual cases and explanations to principles.  What you appear to be saying is that criminals will honestly report the reasons for their crimes.  I myself don't think anybody knows the true reason for their behaviours, let alone the criminal himself/herself.

Yes, we are arguing about reason so the purported reason here is the religion.  We don't have threads called "This week in crimes by white men" "This week in crimes by poor people".  Human perception leads our drives for curiosity, and we follow that up with thought and discussion.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

I do, often.   And in return I get called names, accused of supporting misogyny, the killing of homosexuals and apostates, pedophilia, and barbarism.   Argus and DoP are completely out of touch on this topic, and a few others aren't far behind.   Every single time DoP quotes, out of context, some Quranic verse about violence, I point out the verses that are opposed to violence and and preach peace and tolerance - which the vast majority of Muslims follow - but that doesn't matter.   Many on here, including you, think that the very few terrorists are somehow defining of Islam as a whole.  

I was with you up to the including you bit.  That just shows that you haven't been reading my posts.  Terrorism is actually secondary in my criticism of Islam. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I like to tie individual cases and explanations to principles.  What you appear to be saying is that criminals will honestly report the reasons for their crimes.  I myself don't think anybody knows the true reason for their behaviours, let alone the criminal himself/herself.

Yes, we are arguing about reason so the purported reason here is the religion.  We don't have threads called "This week in crimes by white men" "This week in crimes by poor people".  Human perception leads our drives for curiosity, and we follow that up with thought and discussion.

I never said that.  I didn't make any claims as to honesty.  If you think the Hebdo shootings were actually the work of art critics, than so be it.  I believe them. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

You are right.  You did indeed say:

"If they do them due to their religion then that's the reason they do them."

But that is a meaningless statement.  Why have this thread then ?  Why don't we have threads called "Crimes by Italians" ? and so on...

[dialamah]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I was with you up to the including you bit.  That just shows that you haven't been reading my posts.  Terrorism is actually secondary in my criticism of Islam. 

And if  you'd been reading my posts, you'd know how often I defend against the lies that are told about Islam.   

Islam, as taught by the Quran, does not support the oppressive laws enforced by Islamic regimes.   They just use Islam as an excuse for what they'd do anyway.  

[Guest]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

You are right.  You did indeed say:

"If they do them due to their religion then that's the reason they do them."

But that is a meaningless statement.  Why have this thread then ?  Why don't we have threads called "Crimes by Italians" ? and so on...

How would you put it?  I believe a person, generally, when they ascribe their actions to their beliefs.  There will always be exceptions, I guess.  I might be able to pick them out.

Start an Italian thread if you want.  It probably wouldn't get the postings you would like.