Danger of Islam!

[Forkbender]

Read that verse in its context and you will see that it refers to a battle between muslims that were banned from mecca and a tribal army who tried to force them out. It is a specific battle, that was in the past, it doesn't generalize to all battles against anyone.

This is the case for most of the quotes you have produced in this thread that deal with violence and killing in the name of Allah.

And yes, it was a hypothetical situation, but please look at things in their proper context. 1000s of people killing in the name of Allah? Who? Where? When?

 

[zezt]

Read that verse in its context and you will see that it refers to a battle between muslims that were banned from mecca and a tribal army who tried to force them out. It is a specific battle, that was in the past, it doesn't generalize to all battles against anyone.

This is the case for most of the quotes you have produced in this thread that deal with violence and killing in the name of Allah.

And yes, it was a hypothetical situation, but please look at things in their proper context. 1000s of people killing in the name of Allah? Who? Where? When?

Sudan? http://www.lnsart.com/Sudan Slave Story.htm

 

[Pariah]

"I don't like it when either party accuses the other party of 'ego' games"

Yup, me neither, it seems I to am guilty of not being clear enough, what I was refering to was the way that we defend a position: its easy to fall into the trap of defending a position because we've already commited to that position, where pride is what is being defended first, and the importance of truth fades in proportion to the importance of being "right".


Thanks for taking what I've written onboard, dispite its slightly patronising tone (it was meant to chastise the behaviour not one "side" inparticular).


So for the sake of constructive seeking of truth, would either zezt or caduceus, like to arrange a clarification of your position addressing the points I raised? The ideal would be that zezt does this (as the one who started the thread), but as long as something logical and clear is written, it may not matter.

 

[Forkbender]

1000s of people killing in the name of Allah? Who? Where? When?

Sudan?[/quote]

:?

Where do they say they kill in the name of Allah, please?

 

[Brugmansia]

Is it egoistic to leave the human competition for what it is?

Because as long as I'm not affected by it, I often don't feel the need to put effort in people to change their conviction. Debates are affecting me physically. A major purpose for politics is to become aware of our swollen identity individually, objectively speaking, it heats you a lot for micro progression. And individuals seats don't want to give in, they want to be noticed and overwrite others their seats software. And I'm no exception of course, I'm just aware of it.

 

[zezt]

"I don't like it when either party accuses the other party of 'ego' games"

Yup, me neither, it seems I to am guilty of not being clear enough, what I was refering to was the way that we defend a position: its easy to fall into the trap of defending a position because we've already commited to that position, where pride is what is being defended first, and the importance of truth fades in proportion to the importance of being "right".


Thanks for taking what I've written onboard, dispite its slightly patronising tone (it was meant to chastise the behaviour not one "side" inparticular).


So for the sake of constructive seeking of truth, would either zezt or caduceus, like to arrange a clarification of your position addressing the points I raised? The ideal would be that zezt does this (as the one who started the thread), but as long as something logical and clear is written, it may not matter.

Well....hmmm, to be quite direct about it, I do not usually follow the conduct of 'proper debate'--whatever THAT is. I communicate best way I can. I am wary of 'poncy' debate because it smeall all ever so politically correct, and formal, and all that, and that is not me. I also feel and support those not versed in so-called formal debate. Say a simple woman who was battered by her Islamic husband and decided she would like to join here and tell her story. I would no way suggest she do it in a regulated way that abides by the rules of discourse and all that baloney.
is the same argument I have had from people in the mental health field, that for some reason you have to be a soddin shrink to question what they are about. And they use a certain in-house lingo and so on. I am one who embraces all people to the table, and they can talk any fukin way they wanna.

No offense

 

[zezt]

1000s of people killing in the name of Allah? Who? Where? When?

Sudan?

:?

Where do they say they kill in the name of Allah, please?[/quote]

Forkbender? Are you arguing for arguings sake?

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

mmm, donuts :drool:

 

[Forkbender]

Forkbender? Are you arguing for arguings sake?

No.

Answer the question. If they do it in the name of Allah, please tell me when they said so, that is: prove what you say.

 

[Pariah]

I appreciate that some people don't like "poncy debate" but when there's strong disagreement, and people want to communicate what they think, with the goal of showing its truth. It's useful to make sure we all understand eachother: whats really being said, as well as valid justification for it.

Using your example of a woman who was battered by her islamic husband:

It can be demonstrated that a woman can be battered by a christian husband or an atheist husband, or an agnostic husband, so using that to support your view (whatever that is) isn't really helpful - its moving away from the truth - people still use appeals to emotion to "prove" all sorts of things:

Testimonies from people who've seen their children go into the depths of a heroin addiction using it as "proof" that drugs are bad, for example: its the same generalisation too: Heroin ruined my sons life, so all drugs should be banned. "My islamic husband beat me so Islam is bad."

Now what you're gullible average joe would say is: yeah, drugs are bad, I feel so sorry for what drugs have done to this person. OR Yeah, islam's bad, I feel so sorry for what islam has done to this person.

The logical approach would shoot that down in flames (and rightfully so): specify exactly what your point is, and why it follows from the proof you put forward. In the examples I've given, you can say that the situation is more complicated than it is portrayed: heroin has nothing to do with DMT, Islam has nothing to do with wife beating.

If written in a clear way, it becomes obvious where problems lay:


A wife was beaten by an islamic husband,
Beating your wife is bad,
Islamic husbands are islamic,
therefore Islam is bad.

or

A wife was beaten by an islamic husband,
Beating your wife is bad,
Islamic husbands are islamic,
therefore Islam caused the wife to be beaten.



These could be said to commit the fallacy of generalisation and the fallacy of false cause.


This isn't to say that using fallacy makes you automatically wrong, it just means you haven't been able to demonstrate your point in a valid way yet, and that argumet can be ignored. ie. try again.

No offense taken.

***

You don't have to know fancy words, just note down in a clear way what you are *really* saying:

What is your general claim? (eg. "Islam is bad")

What specific definitions will be required to clarify your language? (Eg. define islam, define bad.)

What is your justification for your claim? (eg. ??)

What are the implications of your position? What is the practical solution that follows from the justified claim? How would you go about applying the solution? (eg. they should all be deported, or thrown into gas chambers - and you're buying stocks and shares in zyklon B and saving up for a semi-seaworthy transport ship to put this into practice).

Demonstrate that the implication follows from the general claim in a logical manner without appealing to emotion, or falling into any fallacy. (eg. ?? the muslim holy book switches on the genes for evil, proven to cause all people to murder infidels and beat women compulsively).

 

[Forkbender]

I wish I had the composure to jot that all down. Thanks again, Pariah.

 

[zezt]

I appreciate that some people don't like "poncy debate" but when there's strong disagreement, and people want to communicate what they think, with the goal of showing its truth. It's useful to make sure we all understand eachother: whats really being said, as well as valid justification for it.

It is clear what is being said, Pariah, if you read thread, and articles , posts, videos etc. Very clear. But as with most debates there is the antogonist, or Devil's Advocate. I don't say I do not understand them. Of course I do, if they not me that is not my fault. I am just communicating. And I am not particularly concerned how they use the 'rules of deabate', I can deal with what is being said.

[quote:2xjete14]Using your example of a woman who was battered by her islamic husband:

It can be demonstrated that a woman can be battered by a christian husband or an atheist husband, or an agnostic husband, so using that to support your view (whatever that is) isn't really helpful - its moving away from the truth - people still use appeals to emotion to "prove" all sorts of things:

Not at all. Of course I know women in our culture get beaten by the husbands, I have very personal experience of this, as my mum had such abuse from my father! So you don't have to tell me.
But a woman in our culture can get HELP from the culture. That is the point. Whereas with Shariah Law it is difficult because the woman has no rights. "If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, "I divorce you" three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved "unreasonably" – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.

Irum Shazad, a 26-year-old British woman, travels from her battered women's refuge to a sharia court in East London. She explains that her husband was so abusive she slashed her wrists with a carving knife. The court tells her this was a sin, making her as bad as him. They tell her to go back to her husband. (They grant a divorce half a year later, after a dozen more "last chances" for him to abuse her.)" http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 80710.html

Testimonies from people who've seen their children go into the depths of a heroin addiction using it as "proof" that drugs are bad, for example: its the same generalisation too: Heroin ruined my sons life, so all drugs should be banned. "My islamic husband beat me so Islam is bad."

Now what you're gullible average joe would say is: yeah, drugs are bad, I feel so sorry for what drugs have done to this person. OR Yeah, islam's bad, I feel so sorry for what islam has done to this person.

The logical approach would shoot that down in flames (and rightfully so): specify exactly what your point is, and why it follows from the proof you put forward. In the examples I've given, you can say that the situation is more complicated than it is portrayed: heroin has nothing to do with DMT, Islam has nothing to do with wife beating.

If written in a clear way, it becomes obvious where problems lay:


A wife was beaten by an islamic husband,
Beating your wife is bad,
Islamic husbands are islamic,
therefore Islam is bad.

or

A wife was beaten by an islamic husband,
Beating your wife is bad,
Islamic husbands are islamic,
therefore Islam caused the wife to be beaten.



These could be said to commit the fallacy of generalisation and the fallacy of false cause.

Oh it is very easy to play with language as power, Pariah. This is the favourite trick of psychiatrists. they are the masters of it. But we won't go into that right now.
I see things more direct. THAt is where I am coming from. I see women being abused by males who are encouraged to do so via a Medieval religious-political say so. Similar to how women were treated in Medieval Christian times. And actually not long ago, hence the women's movement. because lets remind ourselves, Islamic religion is not that alien. it shares with Judeo Christianity the patriarchal assumption that the male of the species is superior. But we are saying that unlike modern western culture, where womeon have at least got some freedoms they didn't have before. In islamic cultures this is not so. Not have children, nor gays.

What use is all this talk about 'fallacy' and 'rules of debate' when gay people are being persecuted by a medieval law?
I know it is not only Islamic cultures. For example, there are people in America, fundy Christians, and some red necks, etc who 'hate fags' and want to hurt and even kill them. Jamiaca is VERY bad indeed! BUT we here have RIGHTS. That is not fallacy, that is real. And it is real that we dont under Shariah law :"Conservatives and Christians have criticized the so-called “gay lifestyle,

 

[Ahuaeynjxs]

There is like so many words and so much nonsense I cannot even understand any words you are saying, you could all speak chinese here and I would probably understand more what you're getting at.

Seems like a hirsute thread to me.

We agreed a long time ago that wife beating and homo killin is bad, we all know what, it cannot be a god that tells you to do this, we already know it's the people that interpret the law that are the problem. There is problems like that with every religion... sometimes a verbal beating by a christian husband can be much more deeply wounding than you might think.

So what... these people are idiots, they don't know how to read their book and understand their prophet, but they will eventually. He talked about that HIMSELF !

Whats the point ?

You're still trying to convince people here of things we already know, it seems at best, very pathetic since you have not yet offered one solution.

This forum is not a garbage bin to unload all your negative emotions into.

uke:

 

[Pariah]

"It is clear what is being said"

The very reason that I started posting on this thread again was because things *weren't* clear, and things had devolved into a tit for tat exchange, I can make assumptions, but I would prefer to here from you to set in stone (or binary), what exactly you think is the truth. It might seem perfectly clear to you, but its not to me. Why would that be a problem for you? Its a simple request born out of the fact that I don't just want to assume your justifying your predjudice (which is what your use of "evidence" suggests).

"It is for YOu to understand."

!!! You've been saying how "rules of debate" are bad, but you've just given us your own, it sounds like: "I'm speaking the truth, if you don't get it, there's something wrong with you" or "I'm right end of discusion"

Lets just assume, just for a minute that your wrong, how would you ever know, if you don't allow others to question what you say?

...urgh, I'm getting off track...


Now, If all you are saying is that shariah law is unethical, then I think we can all draw a line under this whole thing, but you seem to be making further connections, that don't make sense to me.

as an aside: a woman in a marraige they aren't happy with would just be as much of a pain in the ass as they can until he divorced her, still a bit of a rubbish system, but still, they aren't *all* as helpless and suppressed as you seem to make out. (that isn't to say that human rights abuses don't happen though).


Would you prefer if I asked you short questions instead?


The bringing up of shariah law is a little more constructive, but it still doesn't address why you seem to be linking it to all muslims (are you?)


***

Both the way I, and you and Charley (try to) interact reminds me of a book: zen and the art of motorcycle maintenence.
In part about the perceived disparity between aesthetic (going with the flow) and formal (logical), approaches to life.

I don't suppose any of you have read it?

***

It doesn't seem I'm going to get a proper response from zezt (I'm ever hopeful though).

Would you do the honours Caduceus, and formalise your position? I appreciate it takes a lot of time, effort, and preparation, but it could well be the key to me understanding what your position really is, I'd appreciate it.

 

[Caduceus Mercurius]

Yes Pariah, I could reformulate what I said using the format you offered. Perhaps I'll do so tonight (I'm going out with my kids today).

In the meantime, here's a song that popped into my head last night:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
A miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they'd be singing so happily,
Joyfully, playfully watching me.

But then they send me away to teach me how to be sensible,
Logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
Clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the worlds asleep,
The questions run too deep
For such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what we've learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.

Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Wont you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respecable, presentable, a vegetable!

At night, when all the worlds asleep,
The questions run so deep
For such a simple man.
Won't you please, please tell me what weve learned
I know it sounds absurd
But please tell me who I am.

 

[zezt]

"It is clear what is being said"

The very reason that I started posting on this thread again was because things *weren't* clear, and things had devolved into a tit for tat exchange, I can make assumptions, but I would prefer to here from you to set in stone (or binary), what exactly you think is the truth. It might seem perfectly clear to you, but its not to me. Why would that be a problem for you? Its a simple request born out of the fact that I don't just want to assume your justifying your predjudice (which is what your use of "evidence" suggests).

It is clear to me, as it is for CM, and for the examples/sources I have contributed (far more than many others)for whom it is also clear. All you seem to be contributing is a kind of superiority that YOU know how to debate and others don't. And of course that you just dont dig what is being said, and your own interpretation of the proceedings. I do not share your interpretation of it.

[quote:i797hcu9]"It is for YOu to understand."

!!! You've been saying how "rules of debate" are bad, but you've just given us your own, it sounds like: "I'm speaking the truth, if you don't get it, there's something wrong with you" or "I'm right end of discusion"

Lets just assume, just for a minute that your wrong, how would you ever know, if you don't allow others to question what you say?

...urgh, I'm getting off track...

I am not saying I am right end of discussion. I welcome freedom of discussion which i said before. But obviously there are some people who do not agree with my views. Being all 'debate-worthy' in Paraih's eyes won't necessarily change that situation if people are stuck in their own views. I am bold enough to voice my views is all, as they are theres.
I dont see you challenging the other side to get with 'rules of deabte'? Not that I wish to either

Now, If all you are saying is that shariah law is unethical, then I think we can all draw a line under this whole thing, but you seem to be making further connections, that don't make sense to me.

Although I cannt tell for sure, may it be because you haven't taken time to read the links to articles etc I have provided? Are they supposed to be superfluous?
The Shariah Law doesn't just appear out of nowhere, unconnected to the religious views it is a part of, the Qu'ran, obviously. I have said before, that I question all of patriarchal religion, but in Islam's case it seems even more pernicious because of its combining religious views with political views, whereas for the west the religious and political aren't as combined due to the Enlightnement's influence and other movements that have created a relatively freeer cliomate to exchange ideas in. Where women have rights, gays have rights, minors, criminals, and of course men. For example to choose what religion, or not as the case may be without the fear of doing so. is THIS clear?

as an aside: a woman in a marraige they aren't happy with would just be as much of a pain in the ass as they can until he divorced her, still a bit of a rubbish system, but still, they aren't *all* as helpless and suppressed as you seem to make out. (that isn't to say that human rights abuses don't happen though).

Now THAT paragraph doesn't really make any sense to ME! Are you Islamic muslim? are you a woman in an Islamic marraige oppressed with Shariah Law? So how can you make such a shoddy uninformed judgement like that?

Would you prefer if I asked you short questions instead?

No, I would more prefer you get off your high horse and don't patronise.

The bringing up of shariah law is a little more constructive, but it still doesn't address why you seem to be linking it to all muslims (are you?)

Yes if they suffer the Shariah Law. And the ones so-called not affected, I ask why they do not speak against it. Because others are very affected by it, especially women, and people who are gay, etc.

***

Both the way I, and you and Charley (try to) interact reminds me of a book: zen and the art of motorcycle maintenence.
In part about the perceived disparity between aesthetic (going with the flow) and formal (logical), approaches to life.

I don't suppose any of you have read it?

I probably read it when you were a toddler, or maybe not even born. Whats it got to do with anything. You want us to go along with what flow? Whose flow?

***

It doesn't seem I'm going to get a proper response from zezt (I'm ever hopeful though).

'Proper' in YOUR interpretation of the proceedings. Not mine. As I have said.

Would you do the honours Caduceus, and formalise your position? I appreciate it takes a lot of time, effort, and preparation, but it could well be the key to me understanding what your position really is, I'd appreciate it.

[/quote:i797hcu9]

Good luck CM!

 

[Forkbender]

All you seem to be contributing is a kind of superiority that YOU know how to debate and others don't.

That's not what I get out of it. Pariah wants you to clarify your point so that we can see what you mean and not judge too fast. You are using the same tactics as those defending Shariah Law, i.e. put your opinion on the table and attack everyone that asks a question or criticizes your approach. Why debate when you cannot communicate your point clearly?

It is time for you to stop playing the victim and tell us what you mean to say in a way that we understand. If you don't want us to understand, why do you talk to us at all?

 

[zezt]

All you seem to be contributing is a kind of superiority that YOU know how to debate and others don't.

That's not what I get out of it. Pariah wants you to clarify your point so that we can see what you mean and not judge too fast. You are using the same tactics as those defending Shariah Law, i.e. put your opinion on the table and attack everyone that asks a question or criticizes your approach. Why debate when you cannot communicate your point clearly?

It is time for you to stop playing the victim and tell us what you mean to say in a way that we understand. If you don't want us to understand, why do you talk to us at all?

ahaaaa, now why doesn't he ask YOU to clarify your points? I am not asking this, but do you wonder? Are your points SO clear....? Thats what I get out of it.
Why do you debate when you cannot communicate your point clearly? How come you are so confident that you are very clear what you mean? But I can feel you. I dont have to keep obfuscating about how to 'debate' and all that malarchy which really is a way to change the subject. Starting meta argument that has nothing to do with whats being ACTUALLY said.

If I tell you that there are Neo nazis going around beating people up, killing, and beheading them is THAt clear? If I show videos, and articles, etc is THAT clear? Feel me? This isn't about playing with words and language it is the real thing. Real peoples lives we are speaking about.

If anyone is playing 'victims' round here FB, tis you and yours who keep complaining non comprendi. Is that MY fault. You make sense to ME. And I respond. Since when have I harangued you to make yourself clearer, and thus obfuscating what you saying? I already know what your position is, already.

 

[magickmumu]

This morning I listened to the Gnostic media podcast. The Interview with John Loftus
where he talks about the Muslim Brotherhood and the nazi's.


http://www.john-loftus.com/

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/


He had some story's to tell about the Nazi's the roots of Islamic extremism.
And the connections between the two.

Very interesting stuff check it out.

 

[Forkbender]

How come you are so confident that you are very clear what you mean?

I already know what your position is, already.

That doesn't make sense to me. Either you understand me or you don't. If you don't please ask and I will answer to the best of my abilities.

keep complaining non comprendi

It is because all the inconsistencies in your posts make me not understand your position correctly, thereby making it impossible to agree with you. I would have to make a leap of faith in order to get where you are. Now I am sure you don't want me to take things for granted, so don't mind me asking for clarification.

You are continuously blaming everyone for neglecting YOUR reality while you fail to expose it in a way that people understand. Clearly the burden of proof is on you.