ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 18th May 2019, 11:55 PM   #241
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Let's reverse this for a moment then.

I am a teacher.
And a number of my students are Muslim, as are two of my colleagues and my current intern.
Now, I do not see Islam as a problem, so I've been treating them the same as all the others.
Some of my students are good, some are bad, some actually follow their religion, some just perform lip-service for their (grand)parents.
My colleagues have master degrees in their respective subjects, and my intern is working on that. They also choose to wear headscarves. Now my attitude has been to interact with them as with all my other non-muslim colleagues and look at their competency in their respective fields and whether or not they can explain those to students.

Now, clearly according to some posters here I am doing this wrong. After all they are Muslim, who follow Islam, so clearly they are a problem.
What should I be doing with them then?

So who is telling you you are doing something wrong?

The students that are paying lip service for their grand parents, are the ones we should feel optimistic about. We have to look for ways to make this more and more common. That is what I am on about if you would pay attention.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 12:03 AM   #242
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Of course they ***** are!!!
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post

Yes I rolled my eyes at this one too. Hard to say what message Archie is trying to enlighten us with here, and the 5 letter cuss word has me mystified also.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 05:13 AM   #243
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,321
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
I'm referring specifically to the two atom bombs dropped.

The argument was : The US dropping those two bombs was justified, because it spared x lives.

The argument implied : Dropping the bombs cost y lives. Not dropping them would have prolonged the war and cost z more lives. Therefore, y-z = x lives were spared.
I think you mean z-y=x.

Quote:
My objection is : All of those y lives lost were Japanese lives. Would the equation still have held -- in some hypothetical situation that I cannot now begin to contrive plausibly -- and had the bomb still been dropped, had all of those y lives been American lives?
It's not that hard to imagine: instead of dropping the bomb America invades the home islands. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers lose their lives.

Of course this scenario is worse is every way because not only are more Americans killed, but so are more Japanese, Chinese (because occupation is prolonged), and other south-east asians.

Quote:
In other words, if the US was in a position, at that point, of sacrificing y American lives (instead of y Japanese lives), and by so doing effectively saving a total of x lives, then would it still have done it?
Depending on the values of x and y, it seems the answer is likely yes.

Quote:
If it wouldn't -- and I really don't think it would (do you?) -- then I'm afraid the argument offered, that justification, simply does not hold.
Even if you are right, I don't see why that changes the anything about whether or not the dropping of the bombs was justified. There are two choices. A leads to much less death and suffering than B. In what world is B not justified?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 07:43 AM   #244
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Nope. Addressing your point, not you personally. Your point was trivially obvious and could have been made in half the words, if it needed to be made at all.
Which it didn't.

You are most definitely not "addressing" my "point". You chose to try to denigrate my post -- as in fact you try to do here as well -- by attempting to ridicule its form, its length, as opposed to its content, as opposed to actually addressing the points raised there. And where you had no recourse but to agree (after first, in your post immediately previous, very clearly disagreeing), you do that with remarkably poor grace, by disingenuously pretending to have been in agreement with me all along.


Quote:
You only made one point, and I addressed it.

That’s a lie. The Iraq example was only part of a larger argument, clearly and briefly made earlier. And that apart, here’s yet another instance that has nothing directly to do with Iraq: You yourself asked me to present to you another example of Western bullying of the Muslim world. Which I did, and discussed, and at your request. Very clearly, towards the end of my post.


Quote:
Please don't puff yourself up ( and, yes, this is personalisation).

Yes, your repeated resorting to personalization when you find yourself lacking in cogent counter-argument is in clear display here.

And does the irony in this reference to “puffing up” and pomposity penetrate through to you now, now that I directly point it out to you? This is truly hilarious! What your post lacks utterly in content and in actual coherent argument it more than makes up for in unintentional comedy. Thanks for the laughs!


Quote:
...As I said, I was labouring under the misapprehension that you were making a general point about Muslim hatred of the West, not a banal obersvation that unprovoked invasions are wrong. ...


You spent a long, long time telling me that you were only talking about the Iraq invasion. Are you now saying there was another point buried in there somewhere? If so, could you please state it again? I would be happy to address it.


Gladly. As soon as you make your mind up what it is that you wish to discuss.


Again, I seem to have missed your suggestion. What did you suggest?

You’re disingenuously claiming that you are unaware of any point other than the Iraq example, or what my “larger point” actually was, or of the actual suggestion I’ve made. Your lie is easily demonstrated:

I clearly said this in my post #141 (in response to your post #140 immediately preceding, although not quoting your post): “My larger point is this: The situation there is deeply unfair. The West has acted like the school bully, flattening weaker opposition on little real justification other than its might. ... How can that not generate resentment? And what long-term solution can we possibly have that does not include (but isn't, of course, limited to) addressing that resentmentment by correcting, in some measure, that unfairness?” (And the actual solution also, the actual measure I suggest, I have clearly discussed in previous posts in this short thread, and also after -- and the thread was even shorter back then -- so I don't see that you can pretend to have missed that either.)

Is that position obvious and simply common sense? Sure it is. I observed as much myself in post #154 where I said to The Atheist: : “What I'm saying is so obvious, that I'm surprised that more people don't agree.” It isn't as I've ever pretended to say anything more, or more brilliant, than what I actually have in the few and short comments I'd posted at that point.

But you don’t, at that point, criticize my “larger point” for being obvious or banal or anything like that. Instead, you clearly have this to say to me in your response #163 to that post of mine (after actually quoting that post about my "larger point"): “Now, as for your larger point: No, I don't agree with it, and yes, you are missing some blindingly obvious things.”

And yet, now, in this latest post of yours, you’re clearly implying that you’d been in agreement with me all along. And you now try to pretend that your view is that what I suggest is simply banal, not that in your opinion it is wrong. And what is more, you feign ignorance about anything other than Iraq having been spoken of -- including my larger point that the Iraq discussion was merely part of (and which "larger point" you yourself have already actually expressed disagreement with and tried to argue against), and also including the example of Iran that I presented to you at your own request.

The thing about these forum discussions is that all of what we’ve said in our posts is in clear display. People can sometimes get away with lies IRL in the absence of evidence, but not here, where the evidence is clearly laid out for all to see.

I’m afraid that you have been singularly unsuccessful here in your attempt to hide your inability to coherently argue your case behind your smokescreen of demonstrably (and demonstratedly!) dishonest statements. And nor have you fared any better in hiding your clearly dishonest remarks under cover of your ridiculous posturing and the entirely unprovoked incivility in that last post of yours. I am surprised you thought you could get away here with such blatant gaslighting, here in a skeptics' forum of all places.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 07:45 AM   #245
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I've taken the countries where we are waging a 'war on terror' as that would seem to be indicative of the west retaliating against terrorism.
So that would be Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and a bit in Lybia.
Well, that would be your first error. The intervention in Libya was to protect civilians from being bombed by their own government. The conflict started as a result of the Arab Spring uprisings. It was not a part of the War on Terror, and not retaliation for terrorist attacks.
The intervention in Syria is the same thing: an attempt to protect civilians from the murderous attacks of an embattled dictator, as a result of an uprising again starting in the Arab Spring.
That leaves Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Taking the lowest estimates of civilians killed by direct actions of the western coalition (so not the local governments, not Russia and not the civil wars caused by the interventions of the western governments or the resulting famines), google got me about 99000 deaths.
Some actual links on this would be helpful. Estimates of civilian casualties vary wildly, so it would be good to see your sources on this.
One thing seems clear: in both Iraq and Afghanistan, around 85% of the civilian casualties are caused by Iraqis and Afghans- Al Qaeda, the Taliban, IS and the like.
This is very different from the picture you are trying to portray.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
On the western side, 9/11 with 3000 deaths is the big one of course, with added terrorism since then about 2000 extra (rounding up a bit).
You are right, the direct body count ratio is not 100 to 1, but only 20 to 1 in that case.
As you have not established that Western forces are deliberately targetting Muslim civilians, nor that revenge attacks are launched every time there is a terrorist attack in the West, nor even that the War on Terror (ill-conceived, stupid and tragic as it is) is aimed at revenge on Muslims everywhere, then these figures do not support your claim. They are tragic, and perhaps were avoidable, but you need to establish cause and effect first.


Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
As for western supported Muslim theocracies, maybe you have heard of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States? You know, the countries funding most of the hateful terrorism and extremist Islam?
I have. I lived in Riyadh for 4 years. Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy. Neither are any of the Gulf States.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:01 AM   #246
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think you mean z-y=x.

Yep, absolutely. My bad.


Quote:
It's not that hard to imagine: instead of dropping the bomb America invades the home islands. Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers lose their lives.

But then it wouldn't be an argument for dropping the bombs. What we were discussing there, Safe-Keeper and I, at the point, is whether the US was justified in dropping those two bombs.


Quote:
Of course this scenario is worse is every way because not only are more Americans killed, but so are more Japanese, Chinese (because occupation is prolonged), and other south-east asians.

Oh, I agree. Prolonging the war would have been terrible for everyone, I'm not arguing that at all.


Quote:
Depending on the values of x and y, it seems the answer is likely yes.

That's your view, but you haven't shown that, only stated it. (To be fair, I haven't "shown", either, that the US would not have dropped the bombs if they would have done to US lives then and afterwards what the bombs did to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm afraid I also simply stated that that seems likely to me.)



Quote:
Even if you are right, I don't see why that changes the anything about whether or not the dropping of the bombs was justified. There are two choices. A leads to much less death and suffering than B. In what world is B not justified?

Okay, here's the context:

I was suggesting that the US is 'morally' certainly no better candidate for owning nukes than Iran. Strategically, yes, but not "morally". No real reason for US to work so hard at keep Iran off nukes, other than, ultimately, that might is right (therefore "bullying"), given that the US sits on huge stockpiles of nukes, and given that the US has actually used nukes in the past.

At that point, Safe-Keeper made exactly the same argument you did. But that argument is valid only if it can be shown that the US did anything other than simply use the nukes to further its own ends -- since that is what all countries do, and Iran would too, so there's not much difference between the US and Iran (other than in might), as far as who is really qualified to hold nukes.

That was the context for my post addressed to Safe-Keeper, and the context in which I say that the US was not "justified" in nuking the crap out of Japan (and especially Japan's civilian population, although my argument would have stood even if no civilians had been affected).

Saying that the US gets to keep these ginormous piles of nukes, even as it is the only country to have actually used nukes, while at the same time claiming that Iran must not own nukes, that is special pleading, plain and simple. Special pleading that is based on, and enforced on the basis of, nothing more than overwhelmingly superior might (compared to Iran).

That's all I was trying to say, that was the entire point of that argument of mine.

Otherwise, leaving that context aside, if you ask me, generally speaking, "Should the US have used those bombs then?", then, like you, I'd probably answer "Yes" without hesitation.

Last edited by Chanakya; 19th May 2019 at 08:03 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:02 AM   #247
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
You are most definitely not "addressing" my "point". You chose to try to denigrate my post -- as in fact you try to do here as well -- by attempting to ridicule its form, its length, as opposed to its content, as opposed to actually addressing the points raised there. And where you had no recourse but to agree (after first, in your post immediately previous, very clearly disagreeing), you do that with remarkably poor grace, by disingenuously pretending to have been in agreement with me all along.





That’s a lie. The Iraq example was only part of a larger argument, clearly and briefly made earlier. And that apart, here’s yet another instance that has nothing directly to do with Iraq: You yourself asked me to present to you another example of Western bullying of the Muslim world. Which I did, and discussed, and at your request. Very clearly, towards the end of my post.





Yes, your repeated resorting to personalization when you find yourself lacking in cogent counter-argument is in clear display here.

And does the irony in this reference to “puffing up” and pomposity penetrate through to you now, now that I directly point it out to you? This is truly hilarious! What your post lacks utterly in content and in actual coherent argument it more than makes up for in unintentional comedy. Thanks for the laughs!





You’re disingenuously claiming that you are unaware of any point other than the Iraq example, or what my “larger point” actually was, or of the actual suggestion I’ve made. Your lie is easily demonstrated:

I clearly said this in my post #141 (in response to your post #140 immediately preceding, although not quoting your post): “My larger point is this: The situation there is deeply unfair. The West has acted like the school bully, flattening weaker opposition on little real justification other than its might. ... How can that not generate resentment? And what long-term solution can we possibly have that does not include (but isn't, of course, limited to) addressing that resentmentment by correcting, in some measure, that unfairness?” (And the actual solution also, the actual measure I suggest, I have clearly discussed in previous posts in this short thread, and also after -- and the thread was even shorter back then -- so I don't see that you can pretend to have missed that either.)

Is that position obvious and simply common sense? Sure it is. I observed as much myself in post #154 where I said to The Atheist: : “What I'm saying is so obvious, that I'm surprised that more people don't agree.” It isn't as I've ever pretended to say anything more, or more brilliant, than what I actually have in the few and short comments I'd posted at that point.

But you don’t, at that point, criticize my “larger point” for being obvious or banal or anything like that. Instead, you clearly have this to say to me in your response #163 to that post of mine (after actually quoting that post about my "larger point"): “Now, as for your larger point: No, I don't agree with it, and yes, you are missing some blindingly obvious things.”

And yet, now, in this latest post of yours, you’re clearly implying that you’d been in agreement with me all along. And you now try to pretend that your view is that what I suggest is simply banal, not that in your opinion it is wrong. And what is more, you feign ignorance about anything other than Iraq having been spoken of -- including my larger point that the Iraq discussion was merely part of (and which "larger point" you yourself have already actually expressed disagreement with and tried to argue against), and also including the example of Iran that I presented to you at your own request.

The thing about these forum discussions is that all of what we’ve said in our posts is in clear display. People can sometimes get away with lies IRL in the absence of evidence, but not here, where the evidence is clearly laid out for all to see.

I’m afraid that you have been singularly unsuccessful here in your attempt to hide your inability to coherently argue your case behind your smokescreen of demonstrably (and demonstratedly!) dishonest statements. And nor have you fared any better in hiding your clearly dishonest remarks under cover of your ridiculous posturing and the entirely unprovoked incivility in that last post of yours. I am surprised you thought you could get away here with such blatant gaslighting, here in a skeptics' forum of all places.
Do please make your mind up. When I started talking about the general situation vis a vis the Muslim world and the west, you say you only want to talk about Iraq. When I then start talking about Iraq, you switch back to a demand to talk about the bigger picture.
Let me know what you want to do, and we can proceed.
As for the rest of your rant, I could go through and highlight the false accusations (gaslighting, feigned ignorance, general dishonesty etc. etc.), but I really can't be bothered.
If you wouldn't mind, state your proposed solution for whichever problem you decide you want to discuss, and I'll happily address it.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:09 AM   #248
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
... I could go through and highlight the false accusations (gaslighting, feigned ignorance, general dishonesty etc. etc.), but I really can't be bothered. ...

And no doubt you could also fly by simply flapping your arms. Your modus operandi is getting predictable. Your modus operandi for flying I mean.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 08:42 AM   #249
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,321
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
But then it wouldn't be an argument for dropping the bombs. What we were discussing there, Safe-Keeper and I, at the point, is whether the US was justified in dropping those two bombs.
You said America wouldn't sacrifice the lives of Americans. It was planning to do exactly that. It had been doing exactly that throughout the war.




Quote:
Oh, I agree. Prolonging the war would have been terrible for everyone, I'm not arguing that at all.
Cool.





Quote:
That's your view, but you haven't shown that, only stated it. (To be fair, I haven't "shown", either, that the US would not have dropped the bombs if they would have done to US lives then and afterwards what the bombs did to the folks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm afraid I also simply stated that that seems likely to me.)
Sure, it's possible that they would have just decided to call off the invasion and blockade Japan while continuing the conventional bombing had the nuclear option not been available, but given that the invasion plans were in the works (and given that D-Day actually did happen in Europe), I think that an invasion in Japan was likely.




Quote:
Okay, here's the context:

I was suggesting that the US is 'morally' certainly no better candidate for owning nukes than Iran. Strategically, yes, but not "morally". No real reason for US to work so hard at keep Iran off nukes, other than, ultimately, that might is right (therefore "bullying"), given that the US sits on huge stockpiles of nukes, and given that the US has actually used nukes in the past.
The US has a more than 70 year long track record as a responsible nuclear armed state. Iran doesn't. As such I think it's valid to be more concerned with the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power than with the US continuing to be one.

Sure, the US used nuclear weapons to end the worst war in history in a scenario wherein that use was entirely justified. They also refrained from doing so in Korea and Vietnam, for very good reasons, but when their use would certainly have been tactically justified. Again, that refraining from use in those situations can give us good reason to trust that they will refrain in similar situations in the future. That's not confidence we can have about Iran because it hasn't been similarly tested.

Quote:
At that point, Safe-Keeper made exactly the same argument you did. But that argument is valid only if it can be shown that the US did anything other than simply use the nukes to further its own ends -- since that is what all countries do, and Iran would too, so there's not much difference between the US and Iran (other than in might), as far as who is really qualified to hold nukes.
I think you have this backwards. You brought up a particular use of nuclear weapons. Safe-Keeper showed that it was a justified use. I'm not worried about nations using nuclear weapons in those sorts of situations. I'm worried about them using nuclear weapons in all the other situations where that use will make things worse for the world. Neither Iran nor the US has done so, so the Japan example doesn't tell us anything about either. On the other hand Korea and Vietnam do tell us things about the US but not Iran.

Quote:
That was the context for my post addressed to Safe-Keeper, and the context in which I say that the US was not "justified" in nuking the crap out of Japan (and especially Japan's civilian population, although my argument would have stood even if no civilians had been affected).

Saying that the US gets to keep these ginormous piles of nukes, even as it is the only country to have actually used nukes, while at the same time claiming that Iran must not own nukes, that is special pleading, plain and simple. Special pleading that is based on, and enforced on the basis of, nothing more than overwhelmingly superior might (compared to Iran).
Would the world be better off if the US got rid of it's nuclear arsenal? I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides, though I personally think the answer is no.
Would the world be better off if Iran developed a nuclear arsenal? I think the answer is very obviously no.


Quote:
Otherwise, leaving that context aside, if you ask me, generally speaking, "Should the US have used those bombs then?", then, like you, I'd probably answer "Yes" without hesitation.
Okay. That's the sense in which I think dropping the bombs was justified. I'm not really understanding in what sense you think it wasn't justified if you agree with that.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 09:32 AM   #250
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Do please make your mind up. When I started talking about the general situation vis a vis the Muslim world and the west, you say you only want to talk about Iraq. When I then start talking about Iraq, you switch back to a demand to talk about the bigger picture.
Let me know what you want to do, and we can proceed.
As for the rest of your rant, I could go through and highlight the false accusations (gaslighting, feigned ignorance, general dishonesty etc. etc.), but I really can't be bothered.
If you wouldn't mind, state your proposed solution for whichever problem you decide you want to discuss, and I'll happily address it.
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
And no doubt you could also fly by simply flapping your arms. Your modus operandi is getting predictable. Your modus operandi for flying I mean.
Or don't, as you wish. Colour me unconcerned.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 09:53 AM   #251
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,367
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Well, that would be your first error. The intervention in Libya was to protect civilians from being bombed by their own government. The conflict started as a result of the Arab Spring uprisings. It was not a part of the War on Terror, and not retaliation for terrorist attacks.
The intervention in Syria is the same thing: an attempt to protect civilians from the murderous attacks of an embattled dictator, as a result of an uprising again starting in the Arab Spring.
That leaves Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yes, that is of course why we are also intervening in North Korea, or the various horrible civil wars in Africa. Especially Syria intervention only happened once Isis appeared.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Some actual links on this would be helpful. Estimates of civilian casualties vary wildly, so it would be good to see your sources on this.
One thing seems clear: in both Iraq and Afghanistan, around 85% of the civilian casualties are caused by Iraqis and Afghans- Al Qaeda, the Taliban, IS and the like.
This is very different from the picture you are trying to portray.
I googled Civilian casualties in the various civil wars, then used ONLY the casualties attributed to western intervention, not the casualties by other militias, hence the highlighted fact does not change the figure. When there were doubts I took the lowest estimate given.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
As you have not established that Western forces are deliberately targetting Muslim civilians, nor that revenge attacks are launched every time there is a terrorist attack in the West, nor even that the War on Terror (ill-conceived, stupid and tragic as it is) is aimed at revenge on Muslims everywhere, then these figures do not support your claim. They are tragic, and perhaps were avoidable, but you need to establish cause and effect first.

You are the one that keeps claiming it is a deliberate targeting. I am merely stating that the west has killed all those civilians in the 'war against terror' which, according to our various governments is in retaliation against muslim terrorism. And the more we intervened in that area, the more terrorism rose. After all, muslim terrorism against the west was pretty non-existent in the cold war, when all the 'terrible dictators' (except Khadafi) were staunch allies against communism and our bestest friends.
As for the last bit I've never seen anyone here establish cause and effect that the current terrorism is due to Islam and not other socio-economic factors either.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
I have. I lived in Riyadh for 4 years. Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy. Neither are any of the Gulf States.
Oh, my bad, they are just autocratic nations where all secular laws are subject to religious laws dictated by a small number of fanatical clerics, with the full support of the reigning monarchs, and I note you did not dispute the fact that the majority of funding for ISIS, Al-queda and related groups comes from those nations.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2019, 12:51 PM   #252
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
... The US trying to keep nukes out of Iran's hands while owning them itself is more like a SWAT team besieging a militiaman's house because he is building a bomb in his basement and has threatened to blow up city hall. That's not the police department being oh so unfair to this poor barricaded suspect, given SWAT has an abundance of weapons and explosives and actually uses them on occasion, while this poor man has never hurt anyone. There's likewise nothing unfair about the significant difference in manpower and firepower -- this poor redneck can't do anything but impotently try to fight a whole SWAT team.
A reasonable position up to the time an "America First" president was elected. Actually, up until the invasion of Iraq and the open embrace since of the use of force, including torture. After 20 years of constant war and calling everyone a "hero" for so long, war drums have become background music to an increasingly insecure and irate public, its conscience now attuned to a warrior culture. My-way-or-the-highway America is, today, as worrisome an item as any other player on the scene, formal ideological differences notwithstanding.

Perfect truths poison the mind and open it to absolute injustice in the name of supposed absolute veracity, whatever their formulation. "Might makes right" is brutal, but more subtly and dangerously, "being right gives the right" is more deadly. Beware the righteous with nukes who dream of Armageddon.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 01:41 AM   #253
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,767
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, that is of course why we are also intervening in North Korea, or the various horrible civil wars in Africa. Especially Syria intervention only happened once Isis appeared.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Are you arguing for more Western intervention in the affairs of other countries? That makes no sense.
Are you disputing the motives for the interventions in Libya and Syria? If you are, you would need to provide some evidence.
As for the African civil wars, Libya is in Africa, and you appear to oppose any outside intervention there: again, correct me if I'm wrong.
As a general point, one which I have made before, there is an ongoing debate at all levels of Western society about the desirability of intervention versus inaction. Is it right to simply stand back and watch civilians being massacred by well-armed dictators or murderous jihadists? I submit it is not. On the other hand, military intervention often creates more problems than it solves, especially if it as ill-conceived and poorly thought-out as the Iraq invasion.
You appear to be arguing for neither and both, simultaneously.
I really don't know what you're trying to say here: perhaps you could elaborate.


Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I googled Civilian casualties in the various civil wars, then used ONLY the casualties attributed to western intervention, not the casualties by other militias, hence the highlighted fact does not change the figure. When there were doubts I took the lowest estimate given.
I'm sure you did. However, unless you can provide the source of those figures, there is no way for anyone else to have a look at them. Given the wildly differing estimates, from sources of varying credibility, I think it would help if you put up a few links.



Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
You are the one that keeps claiming it is a deliberate targeting. I am merely stating that the west has killed all those civilians in the 'war against terror' which, according to our various governments is in retaliation against muslim terrorism.
Then you are presumably saying that the civilian deaths were not deliberate. Strange, because your original post made no mention of this:

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
In fact, we are coping with Islam, and we are even 'winning'

After all, for each western civilian killed by a Muslim terrorist, the west has killed upwards of 100 Muslims throughout the Middle East in retaliation.
Even given the slightly higher birth rate there, that is eventually unsustainable.

Not only that, but a suicide terrorist can only be used once, whereas we use pilots and drone operators who do not die each time they kill.

And the most successful terrorist attacks were one off things. 9-11 cannot be repeated, and the attacks on large crowds with trucks are also being prevented now. Whereas, again, we can strike Muslim villages and cities with airstrikes as often as we want.
Once more, you really need to clarify this point. The post I quote above talks about drones bombing villages, and of upwards of 100 Muslims being killed throughout the Middle East in retaliation. Is this some kind of accidental retaliation?

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
And the more we intervened in that area, the more terrorism rose. After all, muslim terrorism against the west was pretty non-existent in the cold war, when all the 'terrible dictators' (except Khadafi) were staunch allies against communism and our bestest friends.
Your grasp of history is a little weak, I'm afraid.
Asad enjoyed a close relationship with Soviet Russia. So did Gadaffi ( as you say). Iraq benefitted substantially from Soviet arms sales during the Cold War. Which other 'terrible dictators' did you have in mind?


Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Oh, my bad, they are just autocratic nations where all secular laws are subject to religious laws dictated by a small number of fanatical clerics, with the full support of the reigning monarchs, and I note you did not dispute the fact that the majority of funding for ISIS, Al-queda and related groups comes from those nations.
Here again, you could benefit from some further research.
One of the main gripes in the Muslim world is its negative depiction by the West. This is exactly what you are doing here.
The Gulf states are not some homogenous block. There is significant variation in their laws and their societies in general. You appear to believe that Saudi Arabia is representative of the entire region. It is not.
The Wahabbi brand of Islam is mainly located in Saudi, and they have significant influence on that country. This is not true of any other country in the region. Some are more conservative, and some more liberal and tolerant.
Your depiction of 'fanatical clerics' dictating laws is inaccurate and unfair and an example of the kind of lazy stereotyping that is causing so much resentment in the Middle East.

As for funding extremism, not only have I not disputed it, it is a fact that I have cited many times on this very forum. I haven't seen you in the 9/11 and associated threads, so you may have missed this. Yes, absolutely: Saudi Arabia and -to an extent- Kuwait are very much responsible for this. There is some dispute about Qatar's part here: they deny it (which they would) but the other Gulf states maintain they still do it. Oman, on the other hand, is in no way linked to this, and neither is the UAE.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 02:08 AM   #254
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Let's reverse this for a moment then.

I am a teacher.
And a number of my students are Muslim, as are two of my colleagues and my current intern.
Now, I do not see Islam as a problem, so I've been treating them the same as all the others.
Some of my students are good, some are bad, some actually follow their religion, some just perform lip-service for their (grand)parents.
My colleagues have master degrees in their respective subjects, and my intern is working on that. They also choose to wear headscarves. Now my attitude has been to interact with them as with all my other non-muslim colleagues and look at their competency in their respective fields and whether or not they can explain those to students.

Now, clearly according to some posters here I am doing this wrong. After all they are Muslim, who follow Islam, so clearly they are a problem.
What should I be doing with them then?


I dont think anyone here says "you are doing this wrong". Whether it's Muslim students or any other students in your class, why would you even think about treating any of them differently? Unless there is something in their behaviour or in what they are saying that gives you cause for concern, then why would you even think about any of them in any particular negative way? That's just a complete non-issue and not really worth you or anyone else mentioning at all.

However, since you mention a school situation - there have been cases in the UK, which ended up in court, where Muslim students did suddenly start drawing attention to themselevs for expressing views that supported Islamic terrorism. One very well publicised case involved a 15 year old girl who had always worn the required school uniform (the school had a fixed uniform policy which all students & parents had always accepted for many years), but where she returned after the summer recess/holidays wearing a Niqab and refused to wear the school uniform. The school asked her not to do that, and she took the school to court in a show trial claiming her Islamic rights etc.

It turned out that the girls older brother (18 or 19) was a leading member of a local banned Islamic group called Al Muhajiroon, which was lead by the infamous Islamic radical preacher Anjem Choudary (check him out). In court it became very clear that the girl was doing this as a public display of support for Islamic fundementalism.

There have been other cases in the UK where Muslim pupils (and probably non-Muslim pupils too), had to be stopped from downloading terrorist material, inc. film of beheading etc., onto their mobile phones and showing this off around the school.

More recently there have been a series of cases around Birmingham (UK midlands), where not just the pupils but the Muslim teachers and the Muslim “Governers” (ie ordinary local Muslims who had got themselves elected to the schools governing body), were teaching in clases where they had the boys segregated from the girls and they were teaching such things as so-called “Islamic science” (as distinct from any other form of “science”), that also involved downplaying the evidenece for evolution etc. And to be clear – those were all publically funded “State” schools, ie not religious private schools.

If you were teaching pupils like that, and with fellow teaching colleagues & governers acting like that, then would you think that you perhaps you do need to speak out against what was happening?

By the way, those particular UK schools (there are about 5 or 6 of them in that area of Birmingham), had to be repeatedly checked and tested by UK school inspectors and various educational/legal bodies before they changed their practices, during which time their Muslim school governers tried to argue that they should teach in a different way in their schools because they were all in heavily Muslim areas where the great majority of pupils were Muslim. And although they were finally forced to teach the standard UK curriculum in the correct way without introducing Islamic religious beliefs into the classes, still a year or two later inspectors found that the teachers and governors had slipped back into again trying to include Islamic religion and practices into their classes.

That situation in those UK schools (and remember we are not talking about private religious schools which can, and do, teach religious beliefs within their education curriculum …. we are talking here about absolutely standard state funded schools open to all & any children in any area/neighbourhood), was not as extreme as what happened in the US with the Dover Trial, but it certainly had elements of that.

As I tried to explain earlier, situations like this are particularly important, because if we are ever to change peoples minds and to get rid of religious bigotry and dangerous levels of religious insistence, then the only way to do that is through proper honest education of children in the schools … but what you had in the case of the US Dover Trial, and to a lesser extent in those UK schools, was a very deliberate attempt by religious parents to force their beliefs and practices into the local schools.

Last edited by IanS; 20th May 2019 at 02:49 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 01:37 PM   #255
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Another comprehensive and well though out post IanS thank you.

Interesting that Islamic non sense is being taught in state schools, in some instances in the UK. Haven't heard of this in Australia, but then I don't think we have large areas, with such a high concentration of Muslims here, so they can become the majority group in a state school.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th May 2019, 02:13 PM   #256
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
It will be interesting but may be troubling in Australia now, that a Bible thumping Pentecostal has won the election. He sees his victory as a miracle and I wouldn't be surprised it he thinks he has a mandate, not only from the people but from God, to take action against Muslims. He has form in this area and the following is one of a number of examples of this from a few years back:

https://www.smh.com.au/national/morr...216-1awmo.html

Quote:
THE opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, urged the shadow cabinet to capitalise on the electorate's growing concerns about "Muslim immigration", "Muslims in Australia" and the "inability" of Muslim migrants to integrate.

This is precisely what we don't need in this country. The prime minister stirring up hatred against one religion while endorsing another - his own that he holds so dear.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 05:44 AM   #257
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Or don't, as you wish. Colour me unconcerned.

Your posts have already, and indelibly, been colored in hues appropriate to them.

I have already shown in my post #244, and shown with clear evidence, how your last few content-free posts addressed to me were no more than a stringing together of personalization and posturing and outright lies, not to mention unprovoked incivility, all made to cover up your inability to face up to the actual content within my post #191 addressed to you, on page 5 of this thread (part of which post even you were compelled to agree with, albeit with very poor grace). Please do not claim you can disprove what I have said, as you did in your post # 247, unless you are prepared to deliver.

As for your transparently faux sincerity here in wanting to address the actual issues I have raised -- which is easily seen for the posturing it is by anyone taking the trouble to go through the last few posts we’ve exchanged (banal they are, they do at least show how elementary critical thinking can very easily unmask empty content-free rhetoric) -- should you really want to do that, there is no need to ostentatiously ask, again and again and again, for what is already available with you.

I have already, in my post #191, clearly raised the points you now claim to want to discuss. All of that post was a clear response to what you had yourself said to me. Instead of addressing the content of that post of mine, you chose to try to weasel out of an argument you’d clearly lost by devoting multiple posts to empty content-free posturing, attempted ridicule, unprovoked personalization and incivility, and plain dishonesty. Should you really want to engage with my “points”, nothing stops you even now from going back to that post and addressing the issues spoken of there, with further reference to the posts we’d already exchanged before that.

And if you choose, yet again, not to do that, then, having clearly seen the quality of your discourse as evidenced in our exchanges here, color me wholly unconcerned about not continuing with this charade.

Last edited by Chanakya; 21st May 2019 at 06:06 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 06:05 AM   #258
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You said America wouldn't sacrifice the lives of Americans. It was planning to do exactly that. It had been doing exactly that throughout the war.




Cool.





Sure, it's possible that they would have just decided to call off the invasion and blockade Japan while continuing the conventional bombing had the nuclear option not been available, but given that the invasion plans were in the works (and given that D-Day actually did happen in Europe), I think that an invasion in Japan was likely.






The US has a more than 70 year long track record as a responsible nuclear armed state. Iran doesn't. As such I think it's valid to be more concerned with the possibility of Iran becoming a nuclear power than with the US continuing to be one.

Sure, the US used nuclear weapons to end the worst war in history in a scenario wherein that use was entirely justified. They also refrained from doing so in Korea and Vietnam, for very good reasons, but when their use would certainly have been tactically justified. Again, that refraining from use in those situations can give us good reason to trust that they will refrain in similar situations in the future. That's not confidence we can have about Iran because it hasn't been similarly tested.



I think you have this backwards. You brought up a particular use of nuclear weapons. Safe-Keeper showed that it was a justified use. I'm not worried about nations using nuclear weapons in those sorts of situations. I'm worried about them using nuclear weapons in all the other situations where that use will make things worse for the world. Neither Iran nor the US has done so, so the Japan example doesn't tell us anything about either. On the other hand Korea and Vietnam do tell us things about the US but not Iran.



Would the world be better off if the US got rid of it's nuclear arsenal? I think there are good arguments to be made on both sides, though I personally think the answer is no.
Would the world be better off if Iran developed a nuclear arsenal? I think the answer is very obviously no.




Okay. That's the sense in which I think dropping the bombs was justified. I'm not really understanding in what sense you think it wasn't justified if you agree with that.

Question: By what right, other than simply might, does the US isolate Iran and squeeze its economy? By what right, other than simply might, does the US threaten the US with actual war? By what right, other than simply might, has the US violated Iran’s sovereignty in the past to directly interfere with its nuclear program? By what right, other than simply might, might the US actually, perhaps, attack Iran someday, if Iran simply refuses to fall in with the US’s desires and directions, as far as its nuclear program?

My answer to that question is: Nothing at all. This is full-on law of the jungle, unvarnished might-is-right in plain view.

My argument is: Every country in the world seeks to further its own ends, as well as the ends of those that it sees as its allies, per its own best judgment. The US is no different; and nor is Iran. Indeed, if anything, the US’s censure of Iran’s nuclear program is even more hypocritical than for most other countries, because it is the US that possesses the largest nuclear stockpile, and also because the US is the only country in the world to have actually used nukes.

In this context, it has been argued that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were aimed at cutting short WW2, and thus, in sum, saving lives. And that argument, in order to actually work, must show that those two bombings cleared a far higher bar than merely the US pursuing its self-interest. (Because every country pursues its own self-interest. If Iran were the only country in the world, or Iraq, or Japan, or even Germany, to possess nukes: then each of these countries would, no doubt, have, at appropriate times, bombed one or two or whatever number of cities in the US, and then have with equal justification that they were merely bringing some particular conflict to a quick end, and by so doing effectively saving lives.)

It is that higher bar that the US fails to clear. I support the US’s use of those bombs in WW2 in purely strategic terms; but I do not believe it clears that higher bar that might give to the US some authority beyond merely its disproportionate might vis-à-vis Iran. Had the US, instead of bombing Japan, ended up simply dropping a bomb on its own cities simply to show to Japan the extent of the might of its new weapons and also its willingness, its ruthlessness, in using these weapons if warranted even at the cost of lives -- which is a bizarre and implausible hypothetical, which is why I hadn’t used it before, and simply said that I could picture no plausible hypothetical -- then in that case that sacrifice of American lives might indeed have qualified as extraordinary, and such a sacrifice might indeed have given to the US the moral heft to insist that it is better qualified than others to possess nukes. Using nukes simply to kill enemies and win a war in the shortest possible time, while eminently sensible in terms of strategy, does not give the US that especial extraordinary moral heft.

As for your argument about the US’s abstaining from using nukes after WW2: well, I suggest the main reason for that is that the US is no longer the sole country with nukes, unlike during WW2. If you’re trying to argue that the US has now, since its WW2 nukings, somehow evolved into some kind of exceptionally restrained contrast from its WW2 avatar, well then Vietnam (and the willingness of the US to engage in chemical warfare) clearly shows otherwise. Not to mention the saber rattling by the present President of the US.

That is what I mean when I say that while I personally support the WW2 bombings in the normal course, and in so far as strategy; nevertheless those bombings are not justified if you take into consideration the higher bar that must operate if the US is to be given any especial status over Iran on any grounds other than simply might.

Otherwise this is nothing more than special pleading.

And the US’s sanction of Iran to limit and curtail its nuclear programme is nothing short of bullying.

As to why that question in the first place, why it is relevant whether that does qualify as bullying, and what all of this has to do with thread topic: that is something I’ve already discussed in other posts on this thread, and won’t go into now so as to keep this post from getting any longer than it already has. But in case it isn’t clear to you why the bullying bit is relevant at all, and why any of this is relevant to this thread, and if you wish me to explain, then please ask, and I’ll be happy to repeat it for you here.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 06:16 AM   #259
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,136
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
A reasonable position up to the time an "America First" president was elected.

Yes, the orange argument probably seals the issue, in terms of bringing an argument essentially about hypothicals into the realm of the clearly plausible, in the present time that is. That can be seen as the clinching argument. Thanks for bringing this up. I’ve taken the liberty of adding this to my argument in my post immediately preceding.


(Not that it was a strictly hypothetical argument even before the dawn of the Age of Orange. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evidence, early on; as was, many years later, Vietnam. But yes, even Vietnam was many years ago, and perhaps a more recent reference was called for, which you’ve very astutely provided. Again, my thanks.)


Quote:
Actually, up until the invasion of Iraq and the open embrace since of the use of force, including torture. After 20 years of constant war and calling everyone a "hero" for so long, war drums have become background music to an increasingly insecure and irate public, its conscience now attuned to a warrior culture. My-way-or-the-highway America is, today, as worrisome an item as any other player on the scene, formal ideological differences notwithstanding.

Indeed.


Quote:
Perfect truths poison the mind and open it to absolute injustice in the name of supposed absolute veracity, whatever their formulation. "Might makes right" is brutal, but more subtly and dangerously, "being right gives the right" is more deadly. Beware the righteous with nukes who dream of Armageddon.

That too, of course.

And then there’s the fact that one man’s 'right', and one country’s 'right', is another’s 'wrong'. So who is to decide who is actually right and righteous?

Any elevation of the US’s moral position over Iran’s, as far as nukes, is ultimately no more than special pleading. The especial, extraordinary stature and statesmanship, as well as breadth of perspective, that the US needs to have consistently displayed in order to earn that kind of heft, it simply does not possess.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st May 2019, 06:50 PM   #260
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I am not targeting Muslims, I am targeting the religion of Islam.
I'm not going to say anything - there's not much point - except that I've noticed that you're still using this argument.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 02:31 PM   #261
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm not going to say anything - there's not much point - except that I've noticed that you're still using this argument.

Odd. A post that says you aren't saying anything.

Yes I have been consistent in adhering to the theme, that the Islamic religion is the problem and the Muslims the biggest victims. My question is how to expunge the religion, without discriminating against and even harming those victims.

Others here seem determined to cloud the issue with themes like "Look over there. Those people are doing bad stuff too." and "Islam is ok because we have all these nice folk who are Muslim." Despite the overwhelming evidence that the radicalised terrorists often come from the "nice peoples homes".

Haven't heard anyone commenting that "Islam is a religion of peace", on these pages yet, which I take as a good sign.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.

Last edited by Thor 2; 22nd May 2019 at 02:32 PM.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 04:15 PM   #262
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,022
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Haven't heard anyone commenting that "Islam is a religion of peace", on these pages yet, which I take as a good sign.
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Oops, wrong religion!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 04:30 PM   #263
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Oops, wrong religion!

Oh dear. Another one of those "look over there" posts.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:16 PM   #264
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Oh dear. Another one of those "look over there" posts.
Yes, one of those posts pointing out the mistaken exceptionalism of your thread.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:17 PM   #265
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 61,995
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Odd. A post that says you aren't saying anything.
I'm saying that I've noticed that you're still using the argument that I have tried to explain to you at length is a bad argument, as though I'd never said anything about it at all. Remember, we have had this discussion in multiple threads in which I have gone into all the reasons why I think "love the Muslim, hate the Islam" is a bad argument. If you really want me to go through them again I will be more than happy to, but if you have no intention of changing your behaviour I don't see much point.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd May 2019, 05:20 PM   #266
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Odd. A post that says you aren't saying anything.

Yes I have been consistent in adhering to the theme, that the Islamic religion is the problem and the Muslims the biggest victims. My question is how to expunge the religion, without discriminating against and even harming those victims.

Others here seem determined to cloud the issue with themes like "Look over there. Those people are doing bad stuff too." and "Islam is ok because we have all these nice folk who are Muslim." Despite the overwhelming evidence that the radicalised terrorists often come from the "nice peoples homes".

Haven't heard anyone commenting that "Islam is a religion of peace", on these pages yet, which I take as a good sign.
Islam is not a monolith defined by your selective interpretations of its texts or selective examples of behaviour of its participants. Individuals and congregations find and construct their own meanings of what Islam is and for some it is a religion of peace.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 22nd May 2019 at 05:21 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:05 AM   #267
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Islam is not a monolith defined by your selective interpretations of its texts or selective examples of behaviour of its participants. Individuals and congregations find and construct their own meanings of what Islam is and for some it is a religion of peace.

Neither Christianity or any other religioin is free from being potentially very dangerous in the beliefs of it's more fundementalist followers, but are you denying that at this present time (i.e. since 9-11, 2001) it is Islamic fundamentalists who have become by far the greater threat (10,000 times greater in fact) to people all over the world?

If you are denying that, then it's frankly a gross & quite disgraceful insult to the hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who have been deliberately murdered and/or very seriously injured by Islamic fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 05:21 AM   #268
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 10,183
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm saying that I've noticed that you're still using the argument that I have tried to explain to you at length is a bad argument, as though I'd never said anything about it at all. Remember, we have had this discussion in multiple threads in which I have gone into all the reasons why I think "love the Muslim, hate the Islam" is a bad argument. If you really want me to go through them again I will be more than happy to, but if you have no intention of changing your behaviour I don't see much point.
I haven't seen that argument. Have a short version? I'd like to know what sets any creed, secular or religious, apart, such that it might not be discussed in terms of its formal structure and content without engaging aspects regarding its followers. Such an argument seems a real stretch, especially in light of, er, atheism!
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 06:48 AM   #269
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Neither Christianity or any other religioin is free from being potentially very dangerous in the beliefs of it's more fundementalist followers, but are you denying that at this present time (i.e. since 9-11, 2001) it is Islamic fundamentalists who have become by far the greater threat (10,000 times greater in fact) to people all over the world?

If you are denying that, then it's frankly a gross & quite disgraceful insult to the hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who have been deliberately murdered and/or very seriously injured by Islamic fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.
It concerns me when good people are the target of islamophobia, including state/personal discrimination, suspicion and abuse.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 09:17 AM   #270
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 4,571
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
It concerns me when good people are the target of islamophobia, including state/personal discrimination, suspicion and abuse.

OK. But that was hardly an answer to the question.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:12 PM   #271
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK. But that was hardly an answer to the question.
It addresses the topic of the thread and why we shouldn’t go around singling out Muslims or anyone for that matter. I am not interested in playing games with attitudes of bigotry. I personally know how these attitudes affect people. A bit of empathy for fellow humans is enough to shut down this garbage.

You have a problem with terrorism then you deal with terrorism. You don’t go around raising suspicion about good people.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 23rd May 2019 at 01:22 PM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:26 PM   #272
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Yes, one of those posts pointing out the mistaken exceptionalism of your thread.

Mistaken exceptionalism? Yes well I'll have to look out for that in the future.

If I start a thread about the existence of goblins, and don't include a reference to leprechauns, is that mistaken exceptionalism as well? I need to know so I don't make the mistake again.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:40 PM   #273
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm saying that I've noticed that you're still using the argument that I have tried to explain to you at length is a bad argument, as though I'd never said anything about it at all. Remember, we have had this discussion in multiple threads in which I have gone into all the reasons why I think "love the Muslim, hate the Islam" is a bad argument. If you really want me to go through them again I will be more than happy to, but if you have no intention of changing your behaviour I don't see much point.

No please don't. I didn't find the "arguments" compelling last time.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:42 PM   #274
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Islam is not a monolith defined by your selective interpretations of its texts or selective examples of behaviour of its participants. Individuals and congregations find and construct their own meanings of what Islam is and for some it is a religion of peace.

Oh ...... they don't refer to the text then?
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:43 PM   #275
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Mistaken exceptionalism? Yes well I'll have to look out for that in the future.

If I start a thread about the existence of goblins, and don't include a reference to leprechauns, is that mistaken exceptionalism as well? I need to know so I don't make the mistake again.
You just need to stop painting people with a broad brush.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 01:45 PM   #276
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Oh ...... they don't refer to the text then?
What an utterly obtuse response.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:14 PM   #277
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Neither Christianity or any other religioin is free from being potentially very dangerous in the beliefs of it's more fundementalist followers, but are you denying that at this present time (i.e. since 9-11, 2001) it is Islamic fundamentalists who have become by far the greater threat (10,000 times greater in fact) to people all over the world?

If you are denying that, then it's frankly a gross & quite disgraceful insult to the hundreds of thousands of people all over the world who have been deliberately murdered and/or very seriously injured by Islamic fundamentalists since 9-11-2001.
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
It concerns me when good people are the target of islamophobia, including state/personal discrimination, suspicion and abuse.
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK. But that was hardly an answer to the question.

Sideroxylon doesn't do "question answering" I suspect Ian. Just throw the word "islamophobia" at you, for affect.

The evidence is overwhelming, that Islamic fundamentalism has become a far greater threat in modern times, and yet some remain in a state of denial about it. When someone, like myself, suggests ways to reduce the impact of Islam, while being careful not to be discriminatory against Muslims, I hear shrill cries of protest and desperate attempts to brand me as a hater. A hater of the 99% of Muslims who are good people.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:17 PM   #278
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
I don’t do dances and jumping through hoops.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 02:29 PM   #279
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,838
You titled this thread, “Islam. How Do We cope?” That is islamophobic Own it. You would be right at home with those One Nation clowns.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd May 2019, 03:19 PM   #280
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,057
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
You titled this thread, “Islam. How Do We cope?” That is islamophobic Own it. You would be right at home with those One Nation clowns.

My, we are getting desperate.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with my previous scribblings? If you were, you would realise how absurd, this alignment with One Nation you are suggesting, is. Just another example of sensation seeking outburst, methinks.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.