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 6th June 2019, 01:46 AM   #401
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,581
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
Not that long ago our president, a 'born again' evangelical Christian, embarked on a crusade against Muslims. And the majority of the country cheered on his murderous rampage - which continues to this day.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Well, Bush said it was against terrorism. Now, I have very little respect for Dubya, but if you want to prove it was actually against Muslims in general, then you need to provide some evidence.
If it was really against Muslims, then why haven't we seen something like we saw in WWII, when US citizens of Japanese origin were interned?
Why does the US still enjoy good relations with so many Muslim countries if it is engaged in a crusade against them?
Again, you seem to be making the same mistake as others here, in buying into a narrative that is simply untrue, and by doing so actually fuelling jihadism by validating this idea.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
So he did not use the word 'Muslim' at all: you inserted that. He declared a war against terrorism, in response to a terrorist attack. There is no justification in what he said to broaden this to mean a crusade against Muslims.



Again, you have inserted the word 'Muslim' into the quote. Bush did not say that: you did.
Furthermore, the government of Iraq at the time was secular, not Muslim.



The historical context of the word shows that Bush was a jackass for using it. However, it has long since come to mean a campaign for change, and it is probably this context that Bush intended.

Incidentally, the same argument could be applied to the term 'jihad'. The Quran is pretty clear that it is meant to be a military struggle, but many moderate Muslims today argue that it is more of an internal, spiritual struggle. Strange, then that the same kind of leeway is not allowed for the Christian version.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes yes, you are technically correct, which we all know is the best kind of correct, but you cannot separate his statements from the context of the time. Anti-Muslim sentiment was at a high point after 9/11, and even if he used the word carelessly and without thought (which I can totally believe, by the way), it was very clear at the time what he was talking about.

Everybody hated Muslims for 9/11. GWB talked about going on a "crusade". You'd have to be an idiot not to put two and two together.
Thank you for your admission, grudging though it is
I have quoted the original claim above, just as a reminder. Bush did not say he was embarking on a crusade against Muslims, which was my orignal point of contention.
Now we have established that, we are still left with the fact that you are continuing to rely on bare assertion and personal opinion. If you want to show that I am not an idiot for not coming to the same conclusion as you, then you need to actually show how this supposed 'war against Muslims' is aimed at Muslims in general. I gave two examples, again requoted, of what might have happened if that was true. Neither of these bear out your claim: no internment, and numerous examples of friendly relations with Muslim countries.

Do you have any actual examples of the US, and its allies (many of which are Muslim countries) conducting a war against Muslims? You could start by showing why the US attacked Iraq because it was Muslim.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis

Last edited by Cosmic Yak; 6th June 2019 at 01:54 AM.
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 6th June 2019, 02:15 AM   #402
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 13,324
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, and in my country, the biggest threat is that the 'threat of Islam' is being used by a very conservative/christian values political parties to attempt to actively remove secular and liberal freedoms, whereas the chances of being actually hurt by a Muslim are virtually nil....
Ahem. Precisely the argument I made, rather strenuously and pointedly, circa Charlie Hebdo days, stressing that the liberal failure to address the dangers of absolutism* of any stripe would be disastrous. The recommendation was to strengthen the notion that the supremacy of civil law in democracy is critical, that one has freedom of belief, but cannot ever have freedom to impose.

I believe I said that the Right would rise as guardian angels today, demons tomorrow. And here we are.

*Perfect truths, on human faces, always form a death mask.
__________________
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 6th June 2019, 03:14 AM   #403
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Exactly.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 6th June 2019, 09:01 AM   #404
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The point literally was the one theprestige translated for you. Not that it needed much effort to translate, since I had already spelled it out in post #370: I don't think the Islam is any worse, nor any better.

So, yes, why do you need anything special to deal with it?

The point being that sure, it's easier to paint any one religion as the absolute worst, if nobody can even mention anything about the other ones. Then all the bad points go neatly in the column you want them in. It can be about Islam, Judaism, Atheism, whatever. Any one of those can be painted as the worst if the bad points can only be tallied for them, but not any other.


But ok, let's get back to the bigger issue then: Are you SURE you actually want to open the can of worms that one can single out a religion for special treatment?

I mean, for a change that doesn't even go against the spirit or interpretation of the 1st Amendment in the USA for example, but it goes against its explicit wording too. Not to mention article 18 the universal declaration of human rights.

And not even based on any comparison, at that, but just because some people feel threatened by it?

It seems to me like both of those are there for a reason.

Even more importantly it's the same freedom that lets you be an atheist. And especially if we were to decide what belief system is bad by how many people feel threatened by it, then I do believe that Atheism would top the list. You'd get both the evangelicals AND the Muslims agreeing with each other for a change, if it came to condemning those dangerous nutters who refuse to take their morals from any God.


Han's, you are not usually this far off the path of rationality. But you are arguing a completely indefensible cause here.

Look, it's a really not an argument. Because there are actual facts here that are central to the issue and which cannot be denied.

Firstly - the hundreds of thousands of people that have been slaughtered quite deliberately by Islamic extremists since 2001 (ie since 9-11) is totally off any scale of comparison with what any Christians may have done. That's a fact (not merely someones personal opinion), and it's unarguable.

And that most definitely is the way that humanity measures the seriousness of the problem (how many lives is this actually taking).

Secondly - it's also a fact that groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are attempting to seize power in various countries, ie to rule those countries as a religious dictatorship. They actually did that in Afghanistan, and they had also achieved that over a very large area of Syria. Afaik, there are no Christian groups that have tried to do anything remotely like that. So that difference is again absolutely massive and it's a fact that just cannot be honestly denied.

It is also the case that wherever reporters, intelligence services, lawyers & trial judges & juries etc have been able to gather data from opinion polls, from trial evidence, or from private interviews with Muslims around the world, the number of Muslims expressing various levels of support for the actions not just of ISIS and Al-Qaeda but also for things like the 9-11 attacks and the London Tube bombing, have been alarmingly high. That too is, as far as we can honestly tell, a “fact” showing just how much support there is for ideas and beliefs of Islamic supremacy even amongst the so-called “moderate Muslims” who would not normally be regarded as at all likely to personally fight any jihad or deliberately attack people of other faiths.

Really, those few factors (the above) represent the entire issue that we are concerned with here, and each of those things (the numbers of dead and injured, the frequency and vast numbers of attacks, the attempts to overthrow entire states and to establish rule by radical Islamic dictatorship, and the amount of actual support for that amongst otherwise seemingly “ordinary” inoffensive Muslims), those are all unarguable facts covering all the most directly cogent issues … the situation is just not arguable at all … and it's certainly not comparable with anything that Christians may have done in recent times.
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 6th June 2019, 10:46 AM   #405
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Absolutely classical BS of the "Look over there" kind.

We have threads about domestic violence - I started one myself. This thread is specifically about the problems generated by the Islamic religion ..... got it?
Nope, you can report my post and have it sent to AAH if you so desire.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 6th June 2019, 10:52 AM   #406
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
You are talking about a totally different subject. Do you really not understand that?

You are now comparing a worldwide Islamic war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, with domestic abuse/violence in US homes where you say that local Christian churches try to minimise and make excuses for such events. Those are two utterly different and unconnected things ...

... how many women do you think are subject to that same sort of domestic abuse in Islamic countries? The problem is almost certainly even worse there ... but that's a very different issue from why Muslims around the world form groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, why they the wage religious wars to control entire countries by all-out murderous force, and why tens of thousands of Muslims born and living in the UK and the EU, take it upon themselves to join that religious Jihad by murdering as many unsuspecting ordinary members the public as possible in the most appalling & barbaric ways (whilst shouting praise to the glory of God!).

You might just as well have tried the idiotic comparison that someone else tried here earlier by saying that more people in the US were killed by smoking or by car accidents!

By the way, we do try to reduce deaths from smoking, drinking, car accidents, and of course we do have laws against any such form of domestic abuse and we (western societies) do try extremely hard to prevent incidents of domestic abuse ... we have national laws against all those things, and we (society & the lawmakers) do try extremely hard to prevent anything like that. The church and it's officials may make excuses for it, just as the Catholic Church in Rome has tried for decades to cover-up and make excuses for child abuse within the church ... we all know that, and everyone condems it in the strongest possible terms... and society through the democratic law has tried to bring the church as a whole and the individuals to justice ... it's far from ignored, it's treated very seriously indeed ... but that's a completely different matter from Islamic fundamentalist religious wars that are currently being perused against virtually anyone who the Jihadists think is less than totally committed to belief in the Koran & Islam.

Final point on that – when you talk like that about other problems in the USA, you are really reacting as if what happened to people in other countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria etc. didn't really matter to you … or for that matter as if it did not really matter what happened to the victims of the numerous suicide bombings all over Europe … you are talking as if the only place that mattered, and the only lives that mattered, are in the USA.

Look – the bottom line is that we (as society) ought to be able to do far more to stop Islamic fundamentalist violence. We ought to be be able to educate people out of the beliefs that that persuading them into physical Jihad and a belief that Islam must rule as a Caliphate for God. We ought to be able to do much, much more, and do it quite easily to greatly reduce this problem, and especially in the UK and Europe that should really not be so difficult to achieve … though it does require everyone (the authorities in particular) facing up to the reality of the problem (which is fundamentalist religious belief … as the jihadists themselves have repeatedly confirmed).

It's much harder to do that in far away Islamic nations such as Afghanistan. But the way to do it is still through education rather than physical wars. However, the reason that the current wars are probably inevitable in the first place, is that you need to remove the ruling (or attempted ruling) groups like ISIS and Al-Q first, before the west can help the greater population of those countries with much better educational opportunities and far more “Aid” to improve all aspects of their lives with better healthcare, better schools, transport infrastructure, far more stable democratic governments and much better relations with their neighbours and the west.
Nope, my point having been made is that evil is evil.
There is evil all around end some evil is produced by all the people that this some posters want to protect. Which is why I focus on the inherent evil of my country the US. My country has created just as great an evil in central America.
But I shall belabor my point no further.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 6th June 2019, 10:55 AM   #407
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

Firstly - the hundreds of thousands of people that have been slaughtered quite deliberately by Islamic extremists since 2001 (ie since 9-11) is totally off any scale of comparison with what any Christians may have done. That's a fact (not merely someones personal opinion), and it's unarguable.

And that most definitely is the way that humanity measures the seriousness of the problem (how many lives is this actually taking).
And my country through it's policies and direct action has created a situation of extreme violence and right wing governments in central America that have killed , maimed and destroyed the lives of millions. And that is an unarguable fact.
Quote:

Secondly - it's also a fact that groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda are attempting to seize power in various countries, ie to rule those countries as a religious dictatorship. They actually did that in Afghanistan, and they had also achieved that over a very large area of Syria. Afaik, there are no Christian groups that have tried to do anything remotely like that. So that difference is again absolutely massive and it's a fact that just cannot be honestly denied.

It is also the case that wherever reporters, intelligence services, lawyers & trial judges & juries etc have been able to gather data from opinion polls, from trial evidence, or from private interviews with Muslims around the world, the number of Muslims expressing various levels of support for the actions not just of ISIS and Al-Qaeda but also for things like the 9-11 attacks and the London Tube bombing, have been alarmingly high. That too is, as far as we can honestly tell, a “fact” showing just how much support there is for ideas and beliefs of Islamic supremacy even amongst the so-called “moderate Muslims” who would not normally be regarded as at all likely to personally fight any jihad or deliberately attack people of other faiths.

Really, those few factors (the above) represent the entire issue that we are concerned with here, and each of those things (the numbers of dead and injured, the frequency and vast numbers of attacks, the attempts to overthrow entire states and to establish rule by radical Islamic dictatorship, and the amount of actual support for that amongst otherwise seemingly “ordinary” inoffensive Muslims), those are all unarguable facts covering all the most directly cogent issues … the situation is just not arguable at all … and it's certainly not comparable with anything that Christians may have done in recent times.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 6th June 2019, 11:25 AM   #408
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,452
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes yes, you are technically correct, which we all know is the best kind of correct, but you cannot separate his statements from the context of the time. Anti-Muslim sentiment was at a high point after 9/11, and even if he used the word carelessly and without thought (which I can totally believe, by the way), it was very clear at the time what he was talking about.

Everybody hated Muslims for 9/11. GWB talked about going on a "crusade". You'd have to be an idiot not to put two and two together.
Technically correct is usually the worst kind of correct, but it does have one virtue: It distinguishes arguments of fact from arguments of interpretation.

You have made an argument of interpretation, and are calling us idiots for disputing the interpretation instead of simply accepting your argument as if it were an argument of fact.

---

Meanwhile, if we're going to get all nuanced and complex in our interpretations, then I think it stretches credulity to put George Bush's colloquial use of the word "crusade" in the same category as a formal declaration of holy war, in the name of Christendom, by the supreme spiritual leader of that cult.

---

Make arguments of interpration all you want. But please don't try to play them as arguments of fact. And please don't resort to insults if someone disputes your interpretation.
theprestige is online now   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 6th June 2019, 11:28 AM   #409
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,452
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
That's not the argument I see as being presented.
There's a couple different arguments being presented. I was referring specifically to the argument that we can learn how to cope with Islam by examining how we cope with Christianity.

The other argument is that it doesn't make sense to single out Islam for special concern.

The two arguments are related.

---

There may be other arguments also being presented; I haven't followed the thread closely enough to know for sure. But I do know those two arguments at least have been presented.
theprestige is online now   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 6th June 2019, 11:40 AM   #410
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
I'll actually present a third argument. Sorta.

We already have laws in place to deal with actual terrorist or criminal organizations. It doesn't even matter if it's Christian (e.g., Tripura and Nagaland), Islamic (you name it), Atheist (like for example the Red Army Faction was), or unaffiliated.

The Waco assault for example happened without the idea being even on the table that it merits any religious exemptions. But what mattered was that they were breaking the law, not what they believed in. They tried to resist a search warrant and shot at BATF officers, they got rolled over. Their beliefs didn't even entered that equation.

So why do we need to start dealing with what someone believes in their head, who may or may not even be associated with such an organization? Is there any actual NEED to open that can of worms?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 6th June 2019, 11:51 AM   #411
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46,452
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'll actually present a third argument. Sorta.

We already have laws in place to deal with actual terrorist or criminal organizations. It doesn't even matter if it's Christian (e.g., Tripura and Nagaland), Islamic (you name it), Atheist (like for example the Red Army Faction was), or unaffiliated.

The Waco assault for example happened without the idea being even on the table that it merits any religious exemptions. But what mattered was that they were breaking the law, not what they believed in. They tried to resist a search warrant and shot at BATF officers, they got rolled over. Their beliefs didn't even entered that equation.

So why do we need to start dealing with what someone believes in their head, who may or may not even be associated with such an organization? Is there any actual NEED to open that can of worms?
To be fair, dealing with the beliefs in people's heads is the recurring theme of Thor 2's body of work here.
theprestige is online now   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 6th June 2019, 01:49 PM   #412
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
To be fair, dealing with the beliefs in people's heads is the recurring theme of Thor 2's body of work here.

True enough. I will leave you to deal with those who have little going on in their heads. An easier task I should think.
__________________
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 6th June 2019, 01:55 PM   #413
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'll actually present a third argument. Sorta.

We already have laws in place to deal with actual terrorist or criminal organizations. It doesn't even matter if it's Christian (e.g., Tripura and Nagaland), Islamic (you name it), Atheist (like for example the Red Army Faction was), or unaffiliated.

The Waco assault for example happened without the idea being even on the table that it merits any religious exemptions. But what mattered was that they were breaking the law, not what they believed in. They tried to resist a search warrant and shot at BATF officers, they got rolled over. Their beliefs didn't even entered that equation.

So why do we need to start dealing with what someone believes in their head, who may or may not even be associated with such an organization? Is there any actual NEED to open that can of worms?

IanS shredded your arguments in post #404 but you just keep on banging on.

And again with the 'can of worms' thing that I refuted way back ^ by showing clearly how you had not read my 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 6th June 2019, 05:59 PM   #414
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 68,225
I apologise for using the phrase "you'd have to be an idiot". It's a common idiom in my part of the world and it is never intended to be a personally directed "you". But I appreciate that it can be interpreted that way.

Regardless, no-one who lived through those times (and I was a little startled when I realised that there are adults today who did not live through 9/11) could have missed that the war on terrorism was widely regarded - by both GWB supporters and by Muslims - as a war on Islam. I was at pains at the time to repeatedly point out to others that it wasn't - it was a war on Islamic extremist terrorists. And that is why I feel that I have zero obligation to accede to Cosmic Yak's demands to provide evidence of a real war on Islam, because I don't believe that it was. Many, many other people at the time did. It was part of the general zeitgeist of the time. Which is what I was pointing out.

GWB used the word "crusade" in at least two speeches, which is why I posted those quotes. That was dumb and insensitive, because it gave people the impression that he was initiating a war against Muslims. His supporters certainly believed it. And some innocent Muslims were abused and vilified because of it.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
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 6th June 2019, 09:04 PM   #415
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
IanS shredded your arguments in post #404 but you just keep on banging on.
I don't see any "shredding" there. But I guess if you have to go islamophobe, being delusional is part of the deal.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
And again with the 'can of worms' thing that I refuted way back ^ by showing clearly how you had not read my posts.
Funny you should bring that up, since you praise a post for "shredding" what it wasn't even addressing. Did you even read both posts? As I was saying, if you have to go islamophobe, being delusional is part of the deal.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 7th June 2019, 02:20 AM   #416
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,581
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Okay, I will.

In the first quote, GWB used the phrase "crusade" in a speech given in response to the 9/11 attacks, which were perpetrated byMuslim extremist terrorists.

In the second quote, GWB used the phrase "crusade" while he was drumming up support for his invasion of Iraq - a war that he claimed was against Muslim extremist terrorists and a rogue Muslim government that he claimed was developing weapons of mass destruction.

Furthermore, historically the Crusades were fought by Christians against Muslims, so whatever context you put it in, he's talking about Muslims.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Yes yes, you are technically correct, which we all know is the best kind of correct, but you cannot separate his statements from the context of the time. Anti-Muslim sentiment was at a high point after 9/11, and even if he used the word carelessly and without thought (which I can totally believe, by the way), it was very clear at the time what he was talking about.

Everybody hated Muslims for 9/11. GWB talked about going on a "crusade". You'd have to be an idiot not to put two and two together.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I apologise for using the phrase "you'd have to be an idiot". It's a common idiom in my part of the world and it is never intended to be a personally directed "you". But I appreciate that it can be interpreted that way.

Regardless, no-one who lived through those times (and I was a little startled when I realised that there are adults today who did not live through 9/11) could have missed that the war on terrorism was widely regarded - by both GWB supporters and by Muslims - as a war on Islam. I was at pains at the time to repeatedly point out to others that it wasn't - it was a war on Islamic extremist terrorists. And that is why I feel that I have zero obligation to accede to Cosmic Yak's demands to provide evidence of a real war on Islam, because I don't believe that it was.
Which makes this exchange particuarly puzzling:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
So he didn't say it was a crusade against Muslims. Thank you for confirming my point.
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Who was the crusade against, then?
Can I take it, then, that you have answered your own question?

I have highlighted the times you used 'Muslims', and also your shift from that to 'Islamist extremist terrorists'.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

Many, many other people at the time did. It was part of the general zeitgeist of the time. Which is what I was pointing out.
Honestly, I don't think you were, but I'm happy you've changed your mind.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

GWB used the word "crusade" in at least two speeches, which is why I posted those quotes. That was dumb and insensitive, because it gave people the impression that he was initiating a war against Muslims. His supporters certainly believed it. And some innocent Muslims were abused and vilified because of it.
Which is exactly what I've been saying all along:

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak
The historical context of the word shows that Bush was a jackass for using it. However, it has long since come to mean a campaign for change, and it is probably this context that Bush intended.
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Well, Bush said it was against terrorism.


Again, you seem to be making the same mistake as others here, in buying into a narrative that is simply untrue, and by doing so actually fuelling jihadism by validating this idea.
And what theprestige said:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Meanwhile, if we're going to get all nuanced and complex in our interpretations, then I think it stretches credulity to put George Bush's colloquial use of the word "crusade" in the same category as a formal declaration of holy war, in the name of Christendom, by the supreme spiritual leader of that cult.
Sorry to labour the point somewhat, but you appear to now be agreeing with us, when you weren't before, without actually admitting it.
At the end of the day, though, I think what matters is that we should be refuting this idea that the West is engaged in a war against Muslims, or against Islam, as it is clearly untrue, and only fuels the hatred that inspires jihadist terrorism. It's only a small thing, in a small part of a small forum, but every little helps.
__________________
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 7th June 2019, 09:57 AM   #417
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, and in my country, the biggest threat is that the 'threat of Islam' is being used by a very conservative/christian values political parties to attempt to actively remove secular and liberal freedoms, whereas the chances of being actually hurt by a Muslim are virtually nil.
Ahem. Precisely the argument I made, rather strenuously and pointedly, circa Charlie Hebdo days, stressing that the liberal failure to address the dangers of absolutism* of any stripe would be disastrous. The recommendation was to strengthen the notion that the supremacy of civil law in democracy is critical, that one has freedom of belief, but cannot ever have freedom to impose.

I believe I said that the Right would rise as guardian angels today, demons tomorrow. And here we are.

*Perfect truths, on human faces, always form a death mask.

You and Lukraak Sisser (and apparently also Hans who agrees with you by saying “exactly”) are now claiming a conspiracy theory.

Luk Sis is claiming that in his/her country (is that the USA?), his/her rights & freedoms have been dishonestly taken away by a government that is secretly colluding with Christian church leaders (and presumably therefore also with the courts), to change the laws and introduce restrictions that are deliberately aimed at removing the rights and freedoms that you think you ought to have, and they are doing that upon a fraudulent basis of claiming that the changes are needed to protect you, or actually to protect the country, from Islamic terrorism, but where you claim that is an untrue explanation from western governments whose real aim is that (for some unexplained reason) the government is in league with the Church to harm you.

OK, well that's the sort thing that truly nutty self-obsessed delusional people believe in western democracies. So congratulations on joining those idiots.

Look - I don't know what freedoms you or Luk-Sis or Han's have in mind, but in the UK I can tell you what sort of “freedoms” have been changed since the 2005 Tube Bombing, the 2006 Transatlantic airliner plot and after countless other such plots & actual attacks both in the UK and in nearby Europe (France is only 30 min. away via the Channel Tunnel, in case some people in the US don't know where France or Britain is!). What has been tightened up in the UK are such things as – unnatended bags and cases left on buses & trains or left in public places; liquid drinks being carried on planes; UK Mosques inviting in Islamic fundamentalist preachers from from Pakistan and elsewhere, where until about 2012 there were hundreds of those overseas preachers openly stirring up Jihadist hatred in Mosques all over the UK; there has also been a clamp-down on all sorts of petty crime that was shown to be funding Islamic extremism such as credit card copying (which was, for eg, in some cases taking places in Islamic run restaurants in the UK), and the production of fake passports (see footnote re. Abu Hamza) … also a widespread investigation and the closing down of bogus further education colleges which were just being deliberately set-up as a cover for people illegally coming into the country claiming to be students on a temporary visa but who then just disappeared into wider UK society … laws against various public hate speeches etc. inc. public demonstrations by fundamentalist groups like AL Muhajiroon and individuals like Anjem Choudary (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun) … tighter security and checking of passengers and their luggage etc. at airports … and perhaps even in some cases judicial licences to monitor the phone calls and the computer usage of certain individuals who were already under surveillance as suspects. Lots of things like that …

… is that what you are calling your personal and secular freedoms that are being taken away from you by some sort of conspiracy between the government, the courts, and the Christian Church?

Luk-Sis and Hans were also saying that Islamic terrorism does not really affect them, and that they are personally very unlikely to be caught up in any Islamist attack. That's effectively saying they don't really care much about it because they think it won't directly harm them. Is that what you Hlafordlaes are saying too?

Because, apart from that attitude seeming to be extremely selfish and dangerously short sighted, it's also an obvious and proven massive mistake. For example – in 2004 the people in Madrid did not think they were at any noticeable risk from Islamic terrorists, the people on the London Tube trains never dreamed that such an attack would occur, and that they themselves would be the victims … there are now around 10,000 or more people in the UK and in Europe who thought such attacks were so very unlikely that it could never happen to them, but it most certainly did happens to all of them (dead or injured). But what is more – apart from the 15 or so actual major attacks that we've had in the UK, the UK anti-terrorist services have over the past 15 years or so, intercepted and stopped a great many more plots, probably around 100 or more such attacks have been prevented … and I don't know of any reason to think such figures are different for France or several other EU nations that have experienced such attacks and also intercepted and prevented many attacks.

I'm afraid the idea that you can just turn a blind eye to this, on the basis that you think there is not much risk to you personally in Germany or the USA, is frankly both dangerously deluded as well as looking decidedly self-interested and uncaring about the rest of the world … until it happens to you of course!


Footnote re Abu Hamza - when the UK hate preacher Abu Hamza was arrested, a search in his home and in the London Mosque where he was preaching, revealed a stash of fake passports and fake/copied credit cards (as well as some guns and/or bullets iirc) hidden behind a false panel of the Mosque ceiling … by the way it was not actually “his” house, it was a semi-detached 4-bedroom house in Acton (west London) which the local Council had provided for him rent free (since he claimed to have no means of financial support and claimed to have a wife and 4 children), where he paid no rent, but when that house was searched they found almost £200,000 in bank notes hidden under the floorboards and hidden in the pages of various books … this was a man who 12 years earlier had been granted political asylum in the UK, and who never worked but only preached Islamist fundamentalist hate all over the UK, and who had amassed £200,000 in cash apparently much of it from fraudulent claims that he'd been making to the social benefits system (eg, unemployment benefit and childcare benefit etc.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Hamza_al-Masri


We could write an almost identical story about Abu Quatada (another UK asylum seeker who for 20 years did nothing but preach Jihad and extremism in Mosques all over the UK).

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

Last edited by IanS; 7th June 2019 at 10:09 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 7th June 2019, 11:22 AM   #418
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Nope, my point having been made is that evil is evil.
There is evil all around end some evil is produced by all the people that this some posters want to protect. Which is why I focus on the inherent evil of my country the US. My country has created just as great an evil in central America.
But I shall belabor my point no further.

OK, well we are all entitled to different opinions, and actually I hate having arguments here about such issues (really!) .

I don't know that it helps to just say people are “evil” though. That's more like a description that religious people would use. And I don't think people are actually evil. For example, I think even the terrorist bombers and the Jihadists fighters who join IS, do think they are doing something extremely righteous.

And unfortunately I have to agree that the USA, even more than most other countries around the world, does seem to have a history of electing governments and presidents that are often unhelpfully self-interested for the USA (and not caring enough or helpful enough to many other nations & their people), i.e. the USA often seem worse in that respect than other European democracies.

But just on the actual issue of Islamic terrorism – if any of us here think it's not really such a big problem, or think that it's a minimal problem/risk for us as individuals in the USA, the UK, Germany, France etc., then we should note that all western democracies disagree with us about that, i.e. they most definitely do think its an absolutely enormous problem that simply must be confronted, and afaik they are supported in that conclusion by all of the research & analysis from virtually every credible intelligence service as well as from all the many courts and lawyers who have actually had to examine all the mountains of evidence and had to deal personally with all the many convicted terrorists.

So if we disagree with the response and the assessment of all the governments and all their legal and intelligence services all over the Western world, then we had better have an extremely good explanation for why that is.
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 7th June 2019, 11:51 AM   #419
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,075
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I apologise for using the phrase "you'd have to be an idiot". It's a common idiom in my part of the world and it is never intended to be a personally directed "you". But I appreciate that it can be interpreted that way.

Regardless, no-one who lived through those times (and I was a little startled when I realised that there are adults today who did not live through 9/11) could have missed that the war on terrorism was widely regarded - by both GWB supporters and by Muslims - as a war on Islam. I was at pains at the time to repeatedly point out to others that it wasn't - it was a war on Islamic extremist terrorists. And that is why I feel that I have zero obligation to accede to Cosmic Yak's demands to provide evidence of a real war on Islam, because I don't believe that it was. Many, many other people at the time did. It was part of the general zeitgeist of the time. Which is what I was pointing out.

GWB used the word "crusade" in at least two speeches, which is why I posted those quotes. That was dumb and insensitive, because it gave people the impression that he was initiating a war against Muslims. His supporters certainly believed it. And some innocent Muslims were abused and vilified because of it.

Arthwollipot - are you living in the USA? I just ask because I'm wondering if it's a view that you formed in the USA when you say it was presented as a war against Islam?

I can tell you that it was certainly NEVER presented like that in the UK. On the contrary, every government spokesman and every media outlet went to enormous lengths to absolutely reject any suggestion at all that it was ever a war against Islam. In fact they went so overboard to avoid any mention of religion or Islam, that for nearly 2 years after 9-11 the UK press almost never conceded even the slightest suggestion that religion was any part of the 9-11 attacks at all.

Of course, that was really entirely untruthful of the press/media and all UK politicians. But they were just that afraid of making the situation worse by openly admitting that Islamic religious beliefs were obviously a central part of the terrorist beliefs, justifications, or motivations ... i.e. they were terrified of precipitating a huge public outcry from furious UK Muslims ... they did not want to stir up any actual physical confrontations on the streets between Muslims and non-Muslims in the UK.

Very gradually, from about 2003 onwards the UK press did start admitting that religious beliefs were actually involved in motiving and justifying the attacks. And now that is openly admitted & discussed in all the UK press ... though even now it's often hedged-about with a lot of if's & buts and great deal of caution about the exact words to be used (so as to avoid any offence to religious sensitivities).

Finally on that point I could just add that in the last year or two quite a few Muslim groups and Muslim spokesmen have stated to openly say that the Muslim communities of the UK must face the fact that they actually do have a problem within their communities and that there are actually people amongst them with dangerous extremist views that are bringing the entire community under suspicion and into disrespect. That admission has taken nearly 20 years though.

Last edited by IanS; 7th June 2019 at 11:55 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 7th June 2019, 01:47 PM   #420
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well we are all entitled to different opinions, and actually I hate having arguments here about such issues (really!) .

I don't know that it helps to just say people are “evil” though. That's more like a description that religious people would use. And I don't think people are actually evil. For example, I think even the terrorist bombers and the Jihadists fighters who join IS, do think they are doing something extremely righteous.

And unfortunately I have to agree that the USA, even more than most other countries around the world, does seem to have a history of electing governments and presidents that are often unhelpfully self-interested for the USA (and not caring enough or helpful enough to many other nations & their people), i.e. the USA often seem worse in that respect than other European democracies.

But just on the actual issue of Islamic terrorism – if any of us here think it's not really such a big problem, or think that it's a minimal problem/risk for us as individuals in the USA, the UK, Germany, France etc., then we should note that all western democracies disagree with us about that, i.e. they most definitely do think its an absolutely enormous problem that simply must be confronted, and afaik they are supported in that conclusion by all of the research & analysis from virtually every credible intelligence service as well as from all the many courts and lawyers who have actually had to examine all the mountains of evidence and had to deal personally with all the many convicted terrorists.

So if we disagree with the response and the assessment of all the governments and all their legal and intelligence services all over the Western world, then we had better have an extremely good explanation for why that is.
My soap box is labelled there are other issues much more pressing than radical islam.

- one to point out is the Saudi government and it's inherent wahabism, it is 'mainstream' and always seems to get a pass, despite the great evil they perpetrate
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 7th June 2019, 02:16 PM   #421
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I don't see any "shredding" there. But I guess if you have to go islamophobe, being delusional is part of the deal.



Funny you should bring that up, since you praise a post for "shredding" what it wasn't even addressing. Did you even read both posts? As I was saying, if you have to go islamophobe, being delusional is part of the deal.

Islamophobe. Such a fine term to throw in when no argument comes to mind.

The foiling of Islam inspired terrorist attacks, mentioned by IanS, is worth noting also. Has been a number of these in Australia, I recall reading about over the years. Well done our police forces!
__________________
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 7th June 2019, 02:33 PM   #422
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
My soap box is labelled there are other issues much more pressing than radical islam.

- one to point out is the Saudi government and it's inherent wahabism, it is 'mainstream' and always seems to get a pass, despite the great evil they perpetrate

More of that "look over there" BS posts.

We had you drawing our attention to domestic violence before, and now you're talking about Wahhabism, as being a bigger problem that we should concern ourselves with, rather than the Islamic religion.

Look, I can be concerned about many issues simultaneously and it's not that hard you know ..... no exceptional multitasking skills required. I just wonder what else you are going to bring up now!
__________________
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 7th June 2019, 09:46 PM   #423
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
More of that "look over there" BS posts.

We had you drawing our attention to domestic violence before, and now you're talking about Wahhabism, as being a bigger problem that we should concern ourselves with, rather than the Islamic religion.

Look, I can be concerned about many issues simultaneously and it's not that hard you know ..... no exceptional multitasking skills required. I just wonder what else you are going to bring up now!
Yes, we can all multitask and worry about several things.
And I, and some others here sort 'Islam' as a problem somewhere at the bottom of the pile of things I worry about and I feel that I have presented the reasons why I feel that way.

You may call that 'look over there BS', I call it having a different opinion and trying to explain why I have that.
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 8th June 2019, 05:45 AM   #424
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Islamophobe. Such a fine term to throw in when no argument comes to mind.
It's also used in its literal meaning, when what's being peddled is literally the fear of Islam.
Islamophobia:

1. hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture
Or, lemme guess, do you now need to even redefine words for this spiel to work?

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The foiling of Islam inspired terrorist attacks, mentioned by IanS, is worth noting also. Has been a number of these in Australia, I recall reading about over the years. Well done our police forces!
Worth noting, sure, but I'm not sure how it was supposedly "shredding" my post saying precisely that we already have laws in place to deal with criminal acts, inspired by religion or not, and they work. So how does it work in your reality distortion field that an example of it existing and working is somehow a "shredding" of the idea that it exists and it works? Explain. This should be good.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 8th June 2019, 05:58 AM   #425
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, we can all multitask and worry about several things.
And I, and some others here sort 'Islam' as a problem somewhere at the bottom of the pile of things I worry about and I feel that I have presented the reasons why I feel that way.

You may call that 'look over there BS', I call it having a different opinion and trying to explain why I have that.
Nah, it's not about multitasking, it's that he's doing the usual BS when it comes to peddling unsupportable BS about a religion. For a change it's against a religion, rather than being in apologetics for one, but you can go all the way back to when the board first started and find it pretty much verbatim in almost every religion-related thread:

1. Spew some nonsense, preemptively proclaim victory, no further discussion please.

2. No comparisons please, no examples of similar stuff, only what supports the case is supposed to be discussed.

But in this case the biggest idiocy is that it is repeatedly claimed to BE a comparison. Both Thor and IanS for example make the explicit claim that the Islam is WORSE or a BIGGER danger than other religions, which is a comparison. No, literally, it's a form that is even called a comparative in grammar.

But you're not supposed to mention anything to compare it TO.

If that's not the halmark of dishonest debating, I don't know what is.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th June 2019 at 06:04 AM.
HansMustermann 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 8th June 2019, 02:03 PM   #426
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Yes, we can all multitask and worry about several things.
And I, and some others here sort 'Islam' as a problem somewhere at the bottom of the pile of things I worry about and I feel that I have presented the reasons why I feel that way.

You may call that 'look over there BS', I call it having a different opinion and trying to explain why I have that.

Your attempts to explain your opinions are very poor - perhaps because your opinions are not based on solid foundations.

If you cannot see that the argument: "We should not worry about Islam because we have all these badder things to worry about." Is intellectually poor then it's hard for me to clarify. Perhaps by giving other examples:

- We should not worry about truancy because kids trying drugs is worse.
- Don't be concerned about tooth decay, obesity is a bigger problem.
- Illegal parking should not concern us, speeding is a worse problem.
- Speeding should no concern us because drink driving is worse.
- And so on, and so on.

Got it?........ If you haven't then I give in.
__________________
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 8th June 2019, 02:20 PM   #427
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's also used in its literal meaning, when what's being peddled is literally the fear of Islam.
Islamophobia:

1. hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture
Or, lemme guess, do you now need to even redefine words for this spiel to work?
This is bordering on blatant dishonesty now Hans.

I have repeatedly stated that I see Muslims as the biggest victims of Islam, the religion. Can you see that calling me an Islamophobe is wrong if you take its meaning to be as shown?

Quote:
Worth noting, sure, but I'm not sure how it was supposedly "shredding" my post saying precisely that we already have laws in place to deal with criminal acts, inspired by religion or not, and they work. So how does it work in your reality distortion field that an example of it existing and working is somehow a "shredding" of the idea that it exists and it works? Explain. This should be good.
If I understood the question it would help. I observed IanS tackling all your points one by one and leaving you with a dog pile at your feet. if you do not acknowledge this yourself I certainly cannot make it any clearer.
__________________
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 8th June 2019, 03:35 PM   #428
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
This is bordering on blatant dishonesty now Hans.
Projecting much? Because you're still the only one I see in the thread that argues dishonestly again and again.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I have repeatedly stated that I see Muslims as the biggest victims of Islam, the religion. Can you see that calling me an Islamophobe is wrong if you take its meaning to be as shown?
No, it's still the literal meaning there, and you're still just doing dishonest lexical games.

1. The definition does also mention "or of their politics or culture". Your cutting out half of the definition is just you being dishonest. Because guess what? Religion is a part of culture, and more importantly the behaviours that you and IanS bring up are a part of culture. Guess what the definition mentions? Right, culture.

2. Unless you're willing to claim that there's some aethereal being called Islam, that acts miraculously without people being involved, or any culture or politics being involved, then the whole argument you put up there is flat out BS. No, both you and IanS bring up PEOPLE as doing stuff to be afraid of.

More importantly, if it actually didn't cause any reason to fear muslims as a group more than any other humans, then we're back to what some of us have been saying: then there's no reason to deal with it any differently than we deal with any other humans. But their being no different is not what you propose, is it?

3. Finally, "oh but they're victims" has been used by just about every flavour of bigotry in history. In fact, just about anyone whose listeners might find it objectionable to listen to outright hatred, disguises it in some paternal-autocratic argument that they just want to save them from themselves or from someone using them or such. E.g., antisemites argue that Jews are just deceived by Satan or their rabbis and need to be somehow saved, misogynists argue that women are just used and deceived by feminism / lefties / whatever, etc. They're not proposing to OPPRESS the women, see? They want to SAVE them by putting them back in the kitchen It's not something that makes it totally unbiased, it's mainstream biased talk.

So I'm not entirely sure why you think it works when YOU do it.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
If I understood the question it would help. I observed IanS tackling all your points one by one and leaving you with a dog pile at your feet. if you do not acknowledge this yourself I certainly cannot make it any clearer.
Ah yes, the old "you secretly know I'm right, just don't want to admit it" 'argument'. (And imagine me doing conspicuous air quotes around 'argument'.) If there has ever been an indication that someone doesn't actually HAVE an argument, doing that would be it.

Again, since such just claiming that didn't work for the theists before, I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind makes you think it totally works when YOU do it
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th June 2019 at 03:38 PM.
HansMustermann 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 8th June 2019, 03:43 PM   #429
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Your attempts to explain your opinions are very poor - perhaps because your opinions are not based on solid foundations.

If you cannot see that the argument: "We should not worry about Islam because we have all these badder things to worry about." Is intellectually poor then it's hard for me to clarify. Perhaps by giving other examples:

- We should not worry about truancy because kids trying drugs is worse.
- Don't be concerned about tooth decay, obesity is a bigger problem.
- Illegal parking should not concern us, speeding is a worse problem.
- Speeding should no concern us because drink driving is worse.
- And so on, and so on.

Got it?........ If you haven't then I give in.
No, it's still you that doesn't get it. Or rather is being dishonest.

You make a COMPARATIVE claim. Then trying to suppress comparisons would be stupid in its own right. But that's not even what you're doing. You don't have a problem with comparisons which go the way you want them to, like what IanS is doing. You're just trying to suppress any comparison that isn't the way you want it.

And yes, at this point I'm calling it out: you're just doing dishonest arguing.

And that does include the outright stupid bulleted list up there. Why? Because those aren't analogies to what is being discussed here. Those are irrelevant only in as much as none of them are in response to a comparison claim. Whereas the answers you get here are comparisons exactly BECAUSE both you and IanS have claimed a COMPARATIVE.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th June 2019 at 03:48 PM.
HansMustermann 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 8th June 2019, 09:54 PM   #430
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 13,324
The only sane and logical position is full-blown misanthropy. Raw hate is for losers. Refined and haughty disdain, on the other hand, is the stuff of champions. Sniff.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg monocle guy.JPG (28.3 KB, 1 views)
__________________
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 8th June 2019, 11:37 PM   #431
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,793
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Your attempts to explain your opinions are very poor - perhaps because your opinions are not based on solid foundations.

If you cannot see that the argument: "We should not worry about Islam because we have all these badder things to worry about." Is intellectually poor then it's hard for me to clarify. Perhaps by giving other examples:

- We should not worry about truancy because kids trying drugs is worse.
- Don't be concerned about tooth decay, obesity is a bigger problem.
- Illegal parking should not concern us, speeding is a worse problem.
- Speeding should no concern us because drink driving is worse.
- And so on, and so on.

Got it?........ If you haven't then I give in.
You do realize that is actually your own argument?

I do accept that there are multiple things in society to worry about, and terrorism is one thing. But I do not accept that Islam is the root cause, and unlike you that wants to fix on a single item, I feel we should focus on the multiple other things causing terrorism.
But at the same time we should also be realistic about the actual effect of terrorism and not blow it out of proportion.
To take your illegal parking problem example. Yes it is a problem, but if there are people speeding trough my neighborhood on a regular basis I'd prefer that the police focuses on that and lets illegal parking become a secondary concern.

I know you are on some one man crusade to deconvert every one from religion, and thus consider religion as the source of all evil, but have you ever considered whether your bias is blinding you in this case?

Islam is no more the cause of terrorism than atheism was the cause of the internments in China. Yet you keep arguing for the first while you objected to the second.
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 9th June 2019, 01:25 PM   #432
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Projecting much? Because you're still the only one I see in the thread that argues dishonestly again and again.
So now we have progressed into one of those schoolyard type arguments. "You did it."..... "No you did it" .....

If you were to provide an example of my dishonesty it would enhance your credibility.


Quote:
No, it's still the literal meaning there, and you're still just doing dishonest lexical games.

1. The definition does also mention "or of their politics or culture". Your cutting out half of the definition is just you being dishonest. Because guess what? Religion is a part of culture, and more importantly the behaviours that you and IanS bring up are a part of culture. Guess what the definition mentions? Right, culture.

2. Unless you're willing to claim that there's some aethereal being called Islam, that acts miraculously without people being involved, or any culture or politics being involved, then the whole argument you put up there is flat out BS. No, both you and IanS bring up PEOPLE as doing stuff to be afraid of.
As I understand it you have chosen to imply I am islamophobic, and then quoted the meaning of word from a dictionary as proof of my phobia. Sort of arse about face somewhat I think.

Quote:
More importantly, if it actually didn't cause any reason to fear muslims as a group more than any other humans, then we're back to what some of us have been saying: then there's no reason to deal with it any differently than we deal with any other humans. But their being no different is not what you propose, is it?
Sigh......I am talking about Islam, the religion, being the problem.

Quote:
3. Finally, "oh but they're victims" has been used by just about every flavour of bigotry in history. In fact, just about anyone whose listeners might find it objectionable to listen to outright hatred, disguises it in some paternal-autocratic argument that they just want to save them from themselves or from someone using them or such. E.g., antisemites argue that Jews are just deceived by Satan or their rabbis and need to be somehow saved, misogynists argue that women are just used and deceived by feminism / lefties / whatever, etc. They're not proposing to OPPRESS the women, see? They want to SAVE them by putting them back in the kitchen It's not something that makes it totally unbiased, it's mainstream biased talk.

So I'm not entirely sure why you think it works when YOU do it.
Oh the old "Other people have said this about other issues so we can ignore it." argument. Not impressive.


Quote:
Ah yes, the old "you secretly know I'm right, just don't want to admit it" 'argument'. (And imagine me doing conspicuous air quotes around 'argument'.) If there has ever been an indication that someone doesn't actually HAVE an argument, doing that would be it.
No it's the "Admit to your defeat when you were called out." argument. Much more impressive.


Quote:
Again, since such just claiming that didn't work for the theists before, I'm not sure what kind of confusion of mind makes you think it totally works when YOU do it
__________________
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 9th June 2019, 09:11 PM   #433
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 68,225
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Arthwollipot - are you living in the USA? I just ask because I'm wondering if it's a view that you formed in the USA when you say it was presented as a war against Islam?

I can tell you that it was certainly NEVER presented like that in the UK. On the contrary, every government spokesman and every media outlet went to enormous lengths to absolutely reject any suggestion at all that it was ever a war against Islam. In fact they went so overboard to avoid any mention of religion or Islam, that for nearly 2 years after 9-11 the UK press almost never conceded even the slightest suggestion that religion was any part of the 9-11 attacks at all.
Oh yes, the media was very careful about how they framed the war. I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about Joe the Plumber.

No, I'm not American.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
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 9th June 2019, 10:37 PM   #434
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
As I understand it you have chosen to imply I am islamophobic, and then quoted the meaning of word from a dictionary as proof of my phobia. Sort of arse about face somewhat I think.
Not really, no, it's been used in the accurate meaning from the start, and the dictionary definition only served as proof of that when you challenged it. But sure, whatever delusional rationalization helps you rationalize why it totally doesn't apply to you.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
No it's the "Admit to your defeat when you were called out." argument. Much more impressive.
No, not really. Every other religion thread has some dummy who preemptively claims victory when he's ran out of arguments, so please everyone stop talking about what contradicts his nonsense. Again, I'm not sure what makes you think it's totally different and working when YOU do it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th June 2019 at 10:47 PM.
HansMustermann 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 10th June 2019, 02:26 AM   #435
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,581
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Oh yes, the media was very careful about how they framed the war. I'm not talking about the media. I'm talking about Joe the Plumber.

No, I'm not American.
I'm having a trouble keeping up with your position here.
First, you claimed that Bush said it was a crusade against Muslims.
Then you acknowledged he didn't, but claimed it Bush supporters and Muslims thought it was, and that you'd have to be an idiot not to have thought that.
Then you acknowledged that the British press was at pains not to portray it as a war against Muslims, but that British people (not Americans, not Bush supporters) thought it was (apart from you). Do you have any evidence of this, and do you think that most British people are idiots?
Does the fact that, despite the fact that no-one in either the Bush administration nor Blair's government, nor in the saner elements of the media, said it was a war against Muslims, some people in the UK believed that it was, make it an actual war against Muslims? Assuming your answer is 'no', is it the fault of these groups that, despite their being very clear it wasn't a war against Muslims, some people thought it was? Finally, if you yourself do not now, and never did, believe that it was, what exactly is your point?
__________________
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 10th June 2019, 02:43 AM   #436
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
While I don't think anyone can prove that ALL of any category thought it was, at least SOME people in the categories you mentioned did think it was. I'm too lazy to do the whole study myself, but here's one done by an academic, which among other things does claim that the press focused more on the "crusade" aspect than on anything else: https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-..._num_80_2_4622
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 10th June 2019, 09:03 AM   #437
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 13,324
Speaking for myself, I need a word or moniker that would apply to the vigorous intellectual and/or ethical rejection of religious dogma. Not rejection of adherents to them, just of the credos, the "teachings".

I've got it! A skeptical atheist. That makes me an anti-Testamentarian, Koran-ophobic, Talmud-rejecting son of a gun.

Even if sometimes I'll be easily mistaken for a Christian-hating Islamophobe who is anti-Semitic. Goes with the god-awful territory.
__________________
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

Last edited by Hlafordlaes; 10th June 2019 at 09:05 AM.
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 10th June 2019, 10:36 AM   #438
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,131
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Speaking for myself, I need a word or moniker that would apply to the vigorous intellectual and/or ethical rejection of religious dogma. Not rejection of adherents to them, just of the credos, the "teachings".

I've got it! A skeptical atheist. That makes me an anti-Testamentarian, Koran-ophobic, Talmud-rejecting son of a gun.

Even if sometimes I'll be easily mistaken for a Christian-hating Islamophobe who is anti-Semitic. Goes with the god-awful territory.
There is already a word for that: anti-theism.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann 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 10th June 2019, 11:21 AM   #439
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,699
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
More of that "look over there" BS posts.

We had you drawing our attention to domestic violence before, and now you're talking about Wahhabism, as being a bigger problem that we should concern ourselves with, rather than the Islamic religion.

Look, I can be concerned about many issues simultaneously and it's not that hard you know ..... no exceptional multitasking skills required. I just wonder what else you are going to bring up now!
I just disagree on the priority you have placed, 'tis all.
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David 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 10th June 2019, 01:41 PM   #440
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,330
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I just disagree on the priority you have placed, 'tis all.

Am not aware of any prioritised list I created. Which post did I put it on?
__________________
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 09:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.