Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
I agree. Even when I spelled it out for you, you missed it.
As a wise man once said ...
/oh well.
-
Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .
What's the problem with Islam, anyway?
- Thread starter Gangor
- Start date
As a wise man once said ...
/oh well.
You repeated my winning argument then nuked yourself in despair? No... wait - you can only nuke the infidel to prove yourself right because reason isn't on your side? Oh no, one more try - your powers of evasion are nuclear!
Yes, that's it!
Edit: you do realise that in that quote I stated "about the Islamic World" and you responded by talking about the non-Islamic World? If your argument amounts to "Islam's not responsible for the genocide in Burundi, so it can't be responsible for the low science output in Saudi Arabia" then I feel very, very sorry for your logic-starved brain cells.
Yes, that's it!
Edit: you do realise that in that quote I stated "about the Islamic World" and you responded by talking about the non-Islamic World? If your argument amounts to "Islam's not responsible for the genocide in Burundi, so it can't be responsible for the low science output in Saudi Arabia" then I feel very, very sorry for your logic-starved brain cells.
Well... you haven't prove how Islam slows scientific output or free speech...
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
This gets better by the post.You repeated my winning argument then nuked yourself in despair? No... wait - you can only nuke the infidel to prove yourself right because reason isn't on your side? Oh no, one more try - your powers of evasion are nuclear!
Yes, that's it!
Edit: you do realise that in that quote I stated "about the Islamic World" and you responded by talking about the non-Islamic World? If your argument amounts to "Islam's not responsible for the genocide in Burundi, so it can't be responsible for the low science output in Saudi Arabia" then I feel very, very sorry for your logic-starved brain cells.
Your claim is that for the Islamic world the human rights reports, lack of democracy and very low scientific output, the common denominator is Islam? Again, you have reasoned that when you look at the Islamic World and watch human rights violations etc, you have found that in the Islamic World, Islam can be found.
That. Is. Genius! And hilarious
edit: I do concede. Claiming Islam can be found in the Islamic World is a winning argument
Well there is correlation, but moving to causation is a little more difficult [which I think Ziggy was trying to point out in his painful-yet-hilarious way].
I guess we have to make a judgement call - for example, we know that eliminating religion and superstition usually leads to an increase in scientific output. I think the scientific papers produced in the Middle East are something around 10,000 a year, while in Japan it is well over a million. That's a pretty severe difference.
Also, there is the problem of human rights abuses. Executing women who fall in love outside their forced marriages is motivated by Islamic ideology, without doubt. The fact that other ideologies may have similar motives doesn't change that.
This girl was 16 years-old and like countless others before her, paid the ultimate price simply for being human. They keep the Burqa on her so that even in death she remains their slave.
http://www.iran-press-service.com/ips/articles-2004/august/ateqeh_executed_27804.shtml
Warning: Slightly graphic image, small picture from distance.
Spoiler :
Source?
Again, source?
Prove Islam is responsible for this.
By the way, since Islam is in reality many thousands of branches each with different beliefs and customs, it won't be sufficient to prove this by saying "because Iranian clerics said so." You have to prove it's true for all branches of Islam and believed by all Muslims. Not so straightforward now, is it?
Actually, I quite like that. Granted her some dignity in death.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
"That. Is. Genius! And hilarious"
Write your own insults!
I showed actually there's not even correlation.
Anyhow, on to my promised follow up post. Fortunately Ayn Rand has kindly illustrated much of it for me.
Woodrow Wilson. The man who rediscovered the concept of "morality" in diplomacy, which had been lost since the dark ages.
There is a reason it was lost.
Ever since this douche stuck his beak into the Treaty of Versailles the whole world has been enthralled by the idea that diplomacy ought to be based on who was "right" and who was "wrong" in international disputes, rather than looking at who threaterned the safety of other nations by virtue of their relative power. This is the reason Hitler wasn't stopped in 1934 and the reason the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the '30s Hitler was seen as a fairly benign windbag, and his bluster seen as neccesary for securing his domestic position and not a mark of things to come. He was seen as honorable and a man with whom treaties could be made. As he continued the expansion of Germany, Western powers agonized over his motives - was he contemplating war? Was it "right" that German speaking peoples should be united in one country? They looked at subjective matters rather than the objective truth that Germany was becomming more powerful than the rest of Europe combined. By the time Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our Time" Hitler was in a position to conquer Europe.
Fast forward to 2001, and the reaction of the American people, as well as it's leaders was "those nasty arabs! They must be punished! We have to stop them to save the world!!". These sentiments were in part justified by the Hitler debacle mentioned above, but without any analysis. "We should have recognized the monster" they said. Well, maybe we should, but more importantly we should have realised that Germany was becoming far too dangerous in and of itself. In the current time, the same analysis should have been made of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not. Instead the west opted for the subjective solution rather than the objective one. What should have been treated in the same way as Libya was treated as another Normandy. Liberal Americans blame Bush for this, but in reality they have themselves to blame, nay the people of the world who buy into Wilsonianism to blame. They elect the governments, they pressure them to act, and they suffer the consequences. The world needs a new generation of statesmen who understand the realities of the world, and for this it needs to learn these realities for itself.
Woodrow Wilson. The man who rediscovered the concept of "morality" in diplomacy, which had been lost since the dark ages.
There is a reason it was lost.
Ever since this douche stuck his beak into the Treaty of Versailles the whole world has been enthralled by the idea that diplomacy ought to be based on who was "right" and who was "wrong" in international disputes, rather than looking at who threaterned the safety of other nations by virtue of their relative power. This is the reason Hitler wasn't stopped in 1934 and the reason the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the '30s Hitler was seen as a fairly benign windbag, and his bluster seen as neccesary for securing his domestic position and not a mark of things to come. He was seen as honorable and a man with whom treaties could be made. As he continued the expansion of Germany, Western powers agonized over his motives - was he contemplating war? Was it "right" that German speaking peoples should be united in one country? They looked at subjective matters rather than the objective truth that Germany was becomming more powerful than the rest of Europe combined. By the time Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our Time" Hitler was in a position to conquer Europe.
Fast forward to 2001, and the reaction of the American people, as well as it's leaders was "those nasty arabs! They must be punished! We have to stop them to save the world!!". These sentiments were in part justified by the Hitler debacle mentioned above, but without any analysis. "We should have recognized the monster" they said. Well, maybe we should, but more importantly we should have realised that Germany was becoming far too dangerous in and of itself. In the current time, the same analysis should have been made of Iraq and Afghanistan. It was not. Instead the west opted for the subjective solution rather than the objective one. What should have been treated in the same way as Libya was treated as another Normandy. Liberal Americans blame Bush for this, but in reality they have themselves to blame, nay the people of the world who buy into Wilsonianism to blame. They elect the governments, they pressure them to act, and they suffer the consequences. The world needs a new generation of statesmen who understand the realities of the world, and for this it needs to learn these realities for itself.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
Islam has a history of violence and that is why we should be wary of it. I don't have the time to go into the details, but I remember a post by a former user detailing the various actions of Islamic countries leading up to the first Crusade. It took centuries of conquest before the Christian nations fought back.
Christianity has a history of violence just as bad if not worse than Islam.
*the various crusades
*the spanish in south and central america
*historical oppression of the jews and other european minorities
*witch trials and executions
etc.
What exactly is your point?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Why do you ignore the terrible things that Christianity has done?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Why does anyone care what happened in the name of anything hundreds of years ago?
Estimates from memory.
You've moved away from definition here, because you are describing Islam as though it were some kind of anarchist federation when it isn't. There is a common ideological source for the religion.
Also, I want to point out that your argument is logically flawed. I've pointed this out to at least a dozen people who've made it - who knows, maybe you will actually understand why -
I don't need to prove that all of Islam is dangerous, or that all muslims believe dangerous things. It's completely beside the point. If I say "pitbull dogs are dangerous" it doesn't mean every pitbull is dangerous. If I say "playing Russian roullette is dangerous" it doesn't mean that every chamber has a bullet in it - 5 out of 6 chambers in the gun are empty. The attribution of a property doesn't have to be applied 100% to each and every member and circumstance as you are claiming it does.
Born into a religion she didn't choose, forced to live life a way she didn't want to, facing a future of oppression and force, then ultimately executed at age 16 for being human. No dignity or freedom from the day she was born to the day she died. That is Islam and it's awful.
@Gangor - I liked your post, that was an interesting angle. I'm not entirely sure which "side" you were arguing from though, or to what extent. Also, to what extent does foreign policy analysis determine the actual morality of Islam? Doesn't that just reflect our choice of response to Islamic totalitarianism rather than the nature of Islam as it actually is?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Replace Human with being Gay and Islam with Christianity and you'll see the shocking similarities in Uganda and other places. It isn't inherent to Islam.
Rubbish. Whatever can be proven logically is true.
No, it can't. They're just horrible, violent people. There are horrible violent Christians too, but that doesn't suggest that Christianity is evil.
Why?
No we can't. You have not given a metric at all; you have given assertions undemonstrated by any direct correlations or logic.
Don't worry - it's just a "cultural difference".
And we British could never bury a Muslim woman in the ground and take a photo? That's absurd. You are giving uncontextualised sources and useless assertions and completely failing to prove anything.
Ah. So, [citation needed] tag remains in place.
You'll find that the Shahada is pretty much the only common thing bounding all Muslims. You're portraying Islam as something monolithic which it is not.
This is what it all comes down to. You are choosing to see selected branches of Islam, and then extrapolating their properties to all branches of Islam. You point to some atrocity and say "That's Islam", when what it really is is the action of a follower of a particular branch (out of thousands) of Islam, an action which is influenced by other cultural, political and social factors.
It makes as much sense as saying Catholicism is a religion of paedophiles, or that Western culture is violent and imperialist because of the Invasion of Iraq.
Yes I know.
Spryllino said:
This argument doesn't stand up on its own. The flaws in an ideology can't be explained away like this. Neither by personalisation nor by comparison can the flaws in Islam be evaded or altered. They are real flaws and they are causing real damage.
Spryllino said:
Because the role that Islam is playing in holding back the scientific and democratic development of the Middle East and other Islamic countries needs to be assessed as a matter of urgency.
Spryllino said:
It doesn't matter if we could or would, but whether we are or aren't.
You can't evade real human rights abuses by saying "we might do that in the future" or "other people did that in that past [or present]".
It's like a murderer saying "maybe one day you will murder someone". Well, maybe that's true, but they still need to be convicted of murder.
Does Islam oppress and kill women? Yes.
Does Islam oppress and kill homosexuals? Yes.
Does Islam hold back the scientific and industrial advance of many countries? Yes.
Case closed. Why the continuing evasion and denial? Evil is evil, call it what it is.
Spryllino said:
Islamic ideology has demonstrably lead to the deaths of many people, as well as other forms of oppression. That is perfectly logical and perfectly true.
An argument only requires sufficient logic as is necessary to justify it. If you want to know what "RED" is, you point at red. If you want to know what "Islamic oppression" is, you look at Islamic countries. It's obvious, it's logical, it's true.
Violent interpretations of Islamic ideologies. Plural.
The distinction is very important.
Firstly, you're missing, or choosing to ignore, the fact that oppression and ills and problems in Islamic countries aren't necessary the result of "Islamic oppression".
Secondly, you are failing to account for the diversity of Islamic societies, even the great differences of opinions within countries which are portrayed as the archtypical Islamic fundamentalist countries like Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.
There are shades of red. Islamic countries are even more diverse - the full spectrum from red to violet.
These are flaws in individual people and their cultures, not in their religion. You have not proven the contrary.
No they aren't. People are merely using Islam as justification for their acts, and Christianity is used similarly and has been throughout history.
I did not ask "Why do you have to consider this?" I asked why your examples form the only real-world metric of any validity, because they clearly don't.
No, what matters is whether the fact that you are not a Muslim prevents you from burying women in the ground. It does not prevent you from doing that at all.
Evade them? That isn't the point. The point is that, while they are very real human rights abuses, that is not the fault of Islam, but rather the fault of the people who carry out the abuses, and interpret their religion in a violent way.
That would be a good argument if you had just accused them of murdering someone because they were a Muslim.
No, no, no. It just happens to be the predominant religion in many backward parts of the world. By the same rationale, Christianity kills women, homosexuals, and holds back the scientific advance of many countries. A more sceptical Uganda would surely be more scientifically advanced, and the southern states of America could contribute many more scientists to their nation, I suspect, if they weren't so brainwashed. People all across the world oppress women and homosexuals and suppress technological and philosophical advances, and have always done so.
No it isn't. Islam, like all creeds, has evil people attached to it, and that can be demonstrated not only by the present but also by history, which, contrary to what you say, is highly relevant to the matter in hand.
Well, go ahead and demonstrate it then.
Indeed. An argument requires sufficient logic as is necessary to justify it. Provide sufficient logic, then, to show that Muslims are any worse than the average person in the world.
You can't. Live with it and stop being racist.
StittsvilleJame
Warlord
Ayn Rand - You disgust me.
