'I go to bed at night...
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, September 25, 2010 19:49
VIEWED: 13347
PAGE 1 of 2
...realizing that I am in a small, enlightened group that realizes the truth of things in the world here. As much as I'd like to be, I'm not a fuzzy-wuzzy Liberal love-in dumass, ready to see all the good & sweetness in a world full of danger and hate. I read the posts on the Firefly site, and I can't believe my fellow Browncoats, an otherwise swell bunch of guys, are so riddled with unrealistic views of events in the REAL WORLD we live in. They so totally miss the point of self-reliance and strength. We need to be strong in the face of evil to survive, yet the principles that practically DEFINE our favorite show seem lost on them as they whine and HOPE their way to some utopian ideal of cooperation between people that can't exist as long as the haters of our reasonably noble country are actively planning & attempting to carry out its destruction!
No, I do not *live* in fear, but I damn well won't live in delusion, either. THEY are out there. And they mean to END us.
And all the Nikovitches & Kwickies & Chrissys & Skidmarks & other people who willfully miss the point will never change my mind.
We need to speak loudly & USE our big stick, when necessary.
I go to bed at night, and I dream of rationality in my country."
Now, did I get you right (you know who you are)?
The trying to see it from the other side Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ha! You had me going. For a second, I was going to accuse you of having a niece take over your account... (
to Frem)
The mistake you make, Chris, is trying to place logic in brains that are not logic enabled. Though I think you did get the emotion right.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You forgot to sign off with the judgmental "disappointed" smiley...
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW, I take it you all saw the "Rally to Restore Sanity"? Stewart has announced a march on the DC mall for sane people, where you might carry such a sign as: "I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler." Loooove Stewart.
I had a moment of thinking - OMG! I totally need to go! And I should try to talk FFF RWED people into going so I can meet them and we can hang out and NOT ARGUE!
Then real life returned and I realized: I'm just not likely to make the trip. Which is sad. And not about inconvenience as much as hating crowds. But it was a fun thought.
FYI: others on these boards will clearly be more interested in Colbert's "Rally to Keep Fear Alive"...
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I sympathize with Mr. Rappy. Though I disagree with him on mostly everything, I happen to think that he's on to something on the subject of islamic extremism (though for the record I wouldn't go as far as he does). It could be having an honest difference of opinion, or it could be that I'm a fearful hate monger.
Also, ya'll do a disservice to the word logic. Logic = someone stating a proposition that you support, using reasoning that makes sense to you. Illogic = anything you disagree with, using reasoning you find unpleasant.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Also, ya'll do a disservice to the word logic. Logic = someone stating a proposition that you support, using reasoning that makes sense to you. Illogic = anything you disagree with, using reasoning you find unpleasant.
Look up Illogic, MB. You might find something like this:
Illogic says: "A FEW MUSLIMS HAVE CARRIED OUT ACTS OF TERRORISM, THEREFORE ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!"
Logic replies: "Hang on, pal. There's good and bad Muslims, just as there's good and bad Christians, Jews, Atheists... "
"YOU DENY THAT ANY MUSLIMS HAVE CARRIED OUT ACTS OF TERRORISM. YOU ARE WRONG, THEREFORE IT'S TRUE THAT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!"
Reply: "No one denied that Muslims have done bad things. Could you point out where anyone denied such a thing?"
(Ignoring question, because addressing the question would mean using logic.) "A FEW MUSLIMS HAVE CARRIED OUT ACTS OF TERRORISM, THEREFORE ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL!"
My question for you MincingBeast: Have you actually known any Muslims, or you allowing your bias to grow from the fear-based sensationalism you see in the MSM? [ETA: my apologies for the strong reply if you meant to be ironic. This whole anti-Muslim thing has got me a bit peeved and tending to overreact. For fuck's sake, we're supposed to be freedom-loving America!]
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Logic is a meaningless word--outside of geometry and syllogisms. It is code for "nuh uh" or "yeah huh!" The same goes for reason. I know this, because nobody could possibly disagree with me without being unreasonable and illogical. And also ignorant. We all think this way, I fear.
I know several Muslims, but generally try to avoid the "some of my best friends are..." defense. Alas one of my best friends from undergrad is Muslim, and Palestinian besides. He is Muslim inasmuch as I am Jewish: it is a matter of family history and upbringing, but not faith, because he is a hard drinking apostate. The devout back home would gut him surely as they would me. Most other Muslims I have encountered would probably fall under this category (a law school colleague in particular, an Iranian bastard, who fasted for Ramadan for his ma's sake but drank Keystone all the time).
Beyond that, my exposure has been limited to those I've known in a professional (or intern) context, which was much less pleasant.
That said, I still maintain that (1) Osama bin Laden and his ilk are probably nastier than Sarah Palin and (2) the Koran is a shittier book than the Tanakh.
I am a knuckle-dragging atheist and must shit on everyone's beliefs, all the time. I rationalzie my Islamophobia as Islam presenting better targets to crap on, for the moment, and am frustrated by the fact that it is difficult to raise ths spectre of Islamic extremism without being called a hateful facist. I recognize that the converse of this is it's impossible to make statements of harmless Muslims without some asshole bringing up 9/11.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There IS internal logic, and I think my intended subject is fairly consistent in that regard. Indeed, we all run to a degree on our own internal logic a great deal of the time. Stepping outside one's self is very difficult. I tried to do that with my initial post, but upon re-reading it, I think I still strayed into judgemental mockery on some small level... I was honestly trying to avoid that.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
The mistake you make, Chris, is trying to place logic in brains that are not logic enabled. Though I think you did get the emotion right.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That freakin' hi-larious, Mince!!!!
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
an Iranian bastard, who fasted for Ramadan for his ma's sake but drank Keystone all the time
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can bring up examples of people of all nationalities and faiths that are just as hypocritical as this schmoe. What does it mean in the long run? Do his failings define everyone on Planet Earth who has some particular thing in common with this idget? (Some "thing" that I'm predisposed to demonize, of course.)
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
an Iranian bastard, who fasted for Ramadan for his ma's sake but drank Keystone all the time).
Quote:That's not it. My frustration is that it isn't possible to acknowledge the evils of 9/11 without jumping to such extreme conclusions that we go and rob some innocent New Yorkers of the freedom to go about their lives.
...am frustrated by the fact that it is difficult to raise ths spectre of Islamic extremism without being called a hateful facist. I recognize that the converse of this is it's impossible to make statements of harmless Muslims without some asshole bringing up 9/11.
We can all fucking hate Osama, and still want Muslims in NYC to have a place to hang out. Really. We can. If we'd just chill out and quit with the fear game.
But some of us can't, because certain politicians have learned of the power of fear, and they hold sway over minds who can't do LOGIC.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Xactly.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
certain politicians have learned of the power of fear, and they hold sway over minds who can't do LOGIC.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:There IS internal logic, and I think my intended subject is fairly consistent in that regard. Indeed, we all run to a degree on our own internal logic a great deal of the time. Stepping outside one's self is very difficult. I tried to do that with my initial post, but upon re-reading it, I think I still strayed into judgemental mockery on some small level... I was honestly trying to avoid that.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
The mistake you make, Chris, is trying to place logic in brains that are not logic enabled. Though I think you did get the emotion right.
The laughing Chrisisall
I think you did all right, Chris. And you're right that there is some amount of internal logic in that mindset, but it's based on fallacious assumptions such as ISLAM==EVIL, AMERICA==GOOD. These crappy assumptions make the whole argument null and void to me.
I don't mean to be mindlessly dismissive. I've had some experience with living in such a house of cards: denial makes for a structure that seems solid, but it's built on lies that one can't let oneself examine. I see this in the mentality of those who live in blind hate and endless, paranoid fear. They can't construct a reasonable reply to an honest question (CAN'T, not WON'T) because they are incapable of examining their own minds.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:That's freakin' hi-larious, Mince!!!!
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
an Iranian bastard, who fasted for Ramadan for his ma's sake but drank Keystone all the time
Yeah. Life's too short for drinking cheap beer , except among the Muslim extremists who believe Life's too cheap for drinking short beers...
I used to know several Paki-Muslims who were total porn-dogs...One of the funniest bits was that one of them was a 'prince' in the Paki 'royal family' that was in power at the time. He had a golden necklace with a large Arabic script. I asked him the significance of it , and he said , in reverent tones , " It is the Name of God..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Me either- see my next response...
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't mean to be mindlessly dismissive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
I used to know several Paki-Muslims who were total porn-dogs...One of the funniest bits was that one of them was a 'prince' in the Paki 'royal family' that was in power at the time. He had a golden necklace with a large Arabic script. I asked him the significance of it , and he said , in reverent tones , " It is the Name of God..."
I used to work with a few Muslim dudes, one got married to an American girl while boasting that he f***ed every other hot chick in sight. Then got bothered when I made fun of all organized religions (including HIS).
However, we must remember that peeps from that area who come here are not average representatives of their land- they have means, and that is uncommon (read: spoiled).
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://scripturesforamerica.com
A nightly prayer: Psalm 109
1 Hold not thy peace, O God of my praise;
2 For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
3 They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.
5 And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
6 Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand.
7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
14 Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
15 Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
16 Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
17 As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
18 As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
19 Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
20 Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.
21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me.
22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yea, though I walk through the valley of Piratenews bull**it, I will fear no post; for I am the baddest gung-fu man on site. Verily, Piratenews seeks fornication with other men in his mind, yet denies it to metrosexuals that come on to him, feeling unworthy of such pretty.
John, man. Cut the crap so I don't have to be an idiot like this, okay?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My experience with Muslims has mostly (but not all) been in academia. Which means: I've known some Muslim folks who were privileged enough to buy their way into American universities, and some who were talented enough to get there on their own. Also, I've known some who looked and acted just like any other average American I've encountered. There is no rule.
I've shaken hands with turbaned and robed fellows who were clearly taken aback by the prospect of actually *touching* a woman. An uncovered, on equal footing, American woman. The thing is, they did it. They made contact and then made an effort to be polite to me, to set me at ease. And not so they could sneak behind me and set off bombs. They were, like most people, willing to bend a bit to make the situation peaceful, despite our differing backgrounds.
I can't boast of always being so pliant myself, despite my wholesome mid-western Americana upbringing. But because I'm white, I'm given a chance to prove that I'm not really an asshole. I wish every Muslim had such a chance to be known as individual human beings.
I guess I mean to say: anyone who calls this thing in New York a "Victory Mosque" only proves that they are incapable of being as open minded as the Muslims I've known. Take ten minutes to learn about the builders of the community center before making assumptions of any kind of "Victorious" intentions. Otherwise, it's nothing but fear talking.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe it's just me, but I thought a Mosque (as much as I laff at organized religion) in NY is a way of saying Allah loves all, & Muslims (REAL Muslims) didn't DO this hateful deed.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I guess I mean to say: anyone who calls this thing in New York a "Victory Mosque" only proves that they are incapable of being as open minded as the Muslims I've known.
Am I wrong?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
Logic is a meaningless word--outside of geometry and syllogisms.
You regularly prove yourself wrong. There may only be a few open minds left in the world but they are susceptible to logic. Logic and statistics tell us that we have little reason to fear Muslims because they usually prey on each other, but odds are if I get killed in a terrorist attack it will be Muslims responsible for my demise. "It's simple physics".
Quote:
Iranian bastard, who fasted for Ramadan for his ma's sake but drank Keystone all the time).
Probably reminded him of drinking camel piss.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*OUCH*
SOCKPUPPET ALERT
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
*OUCH*
SOCKPUPPET ALERT
Were have you been Chris, I outed myself in my second post here. I even gave hints.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OUTED SOCKPUPPET ALERT
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have to agree with Mincing that logic/illogic is probably misapplied, and has been at least ever since Star Trek. For one thing, something can be logical without being right, and something can be illogical without being wrong.
And now I'm going to tread on uncomfortable ground.
If we know that religious texts contain reprehensible instructions for adherents to follow, then it is logical to be wary of adherents to that religious text.
If we know that adherents of a particular religion are responsible for more religious-themed acts of terror than any other religion, it is logical to be wary of adherents to that religion in the absence of any mitigating data.
Statistically, Muslims may be the group most likely to carry out a religious-themed act of terror. I don't have the statistics, but it may very well be an undeniable fact.
Making decisions based on that fact may be logical. You could certainly make logical arguments about why you should.
The fact is, you can logically defend a great number of positions, and show logical deductions to explain behavior that is alternatively very desirable and utterly reprehensible.
Logic is a thinking tool. Computers do it without regard to right vs. wrong. Some people do, too. Logic does not equal ethics.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The thing that gets me this morning is that the all-consuming subject these days (aside from the midterms), and especially here, seems to be whether Muslims are dangerous and "comin' to get us" or whether they're human beings, some of which are extremists, as there are in every culture.
Now the thing that really gets to me is what someone mentioned recently; that after all this time, the only thing they've managed to do was catch us off guard and blow up a couple of towers. Horrific as that is, exactly how many American citizens in this country have been victims of terrorist acts? What are the odds that ANY of us here will be? Then why are we so obsessed about it?
The attempt to stoke me into fearing 1.5 billion people, some of whom are, unquestionably, horrible, but who are unable to get over here in any numbers serious enough to harm any of US. Yet it's virtually all we talk about.
What's the answer? Talk loudly and weild our big stick? Didn't we already do that, and how much has it "helped"? Spewing anger and hate does nothing positive for us, for America, or for the situation...it's just being a blowhard, which our country has been far too many times as it is.
Bah...there are so many other things going on that DO impact us every single day, and what's going on is being done by people who want power over us and ARE GETTING IT.
"Messicans are gonna take us over", "Muslims are gonna take us over"...well, what I see regarding Muslims is many of us doing a great job of exactly what they WANT...turning us into non-thinking mobs just like them. Damn, they're good.
A goodly number of our leaders are doing the exact same thing...using fear to turn us into a non-thinking mob they can push this way and that for their own gain. Damn, they're good.
Me, I'm gonna go walk the huskies; it's fun "playing" here but it means nothing. JMHO.
Chris, 'ya done good; you had me going the whole WAY. A new high for you...you're getting almost TOO good!
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:True. But you can ID a biased person by pointing out the huge gaping holes in their logic. For instance, let's try to determine how frightened we should be of any random Muslim person. What are the odds that the strangely dressed dark skinned person riding the NYC subway, or trying to build a community center, is a big evil terrorist?
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I have to agree with Mincing that logic/illogic is probably misapplied, and has been at least ever since Star Trek. For one thing, something can be logical without being right, and something can be illogical without being wrong.
Let's try bad logic:
Quote:Which applies to every religion and cult out there, not just to one religion in particular. For this claim to hold water, you would need to prove that Catholics are capable of ignoring the insanity in the Bible, while Muslims cannot do the same with the Koran.
If we know that religious texts contain reprehensible instructions for adherents to follow, then it is logical to be wary of adherents to that religious text.
Quote:Really Anthony? Really? What you just said is the logical equivalent to: if the majority of customers in a Fuddruckers restaurant is white, then all white people in the world must eat at Fuddruckers.
If we know that adherents of a particular religion are responsible for more religious-themed acts of terror than any other religion, it is logical to be wary of adherents to that religion in the absence of any mitigating data.
Quote:I believe Niki posted these stats, and Muslims were not at all top on the list. They weren't even second. I think it was less than 10% of terror acts in recent history have been carried out by Muslims. (Niki, help? I can't find your post.)
Statistically, Muslims may be the group most likely to carry out a religious-themed act of terror. I don't have the statistics, but it may very well be an undeniable fact.
But that number really doesn't matter anyhow, since the logic you built on it is not at all sound. And peace Anthony - I understand that this logic is NOT your way of thinking. But you're making a mistake to pass off logical arguments because some people misuse them. No, logic is not ethics, but in an emotional issue like this, logic is the best way to ID bias and emotional manipulation. As long as it's sound logic, and it's openly discussed and tested.
(You'll note how open Rappy is to discussing his own logic. As in - not at all.)
My logic?
the odds that any single Muslim is a terrorist
= # terrorist acts by Muslims / # Muslims in the world
= Slim to none
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
The problem with 'logic fail' is not that the logic is typically bad in and of itself. It's that the logic stops so that the adherent can leap to a desired position or course of action.
Let us say that most religious terrorists are Muslim. I don't have these figures. It's a supposition for an argument.
One could then say that I am more likely to find a terrorist in a Mosque than in a Church. That's fine, as far as it goes.
However, like you pointed out, the chance of finding a terrorist at all is vanishingly small, much like the chance of getting hit by lightning in my living room. It's happened before, but it's bloody unlikely.
However, the bigot can make an argument against Muslims by stopping his logic at the point where it supports his argument, and then failing to continue.
Let us make a new supposition to take the argument further. Let us suppose that 1 in every 10 Muslims is out to destroy America. I don't mean they don't like America. I mean that they would take advantage of any opportunity to destroy America if it presented itself.
Now, some people would look at this alarming 10% statistic and declare, "Something needs to be done about these Muslims!"
And if you stop the logic there, well, it sounds good.
But if you don't stop thinking, and continue your thought process, you may realize that the only way to do something about these Muslims is to make some pretty fundamental changes to the nature of America. The most apparent way to stop the Muslim Menace is to destroy America for them, and make it into something else. Something that doesn't tolerate the presence of Muslims.
But you never see these people starting their argument with the idea that we should make fundamental changes to America or destroy its basic principles. You hear them arguing that we ought to Save America from the Muslims. They don't say how, exactly. Those are the sorts of details that might alarm people, or even themselves if they were to voice it out loud too soon.
And yet, those kinds of details tend to work themselves out once you embrace the premise. Kind of like if you agree that all severely handicapped people are drains on society, and something ought to be done about them.
Well, once you agree to that premise, then you open yourself up to a lot of reprehensible stuff that you wouldn't otherwise consider. But first, the premise must be embraced.
Right now, a lot of people are in the Islam = Evil stage of the game. It's an easy argument, since the religious text has many awful excerpts to choose from. You can also select your special sampling of Muslims and show them doing evil things. You can demonstrate aspects of their society that are barbaric and have troubling inequality. It can all be made very logical. Once they get enough people on board with that, and the fact that *something* has to be done, then they can work out the next step of the ultimate Solution.
Meanwhile, people who don't stop the logic train at the first stop realize that buying the premise leads to destroying the very thing you wanted to protect.
We have a (mostly) secular government that operates on principles that are (mostly) divorced from religion. I say mostly, because for every 10 practices divorced from religion you're liable to find 1 that isn't. But it's a good ratio, and it's changing for the better as time goes by.
The problem that 'barbaric' Muslim nations have is that they often exist in a religious country whose laws are not divorced from theocracy. Any such nation will tend to be oppressive at best.
So our best shield against barbarism is the continuing strengthening of the separations between church and state, and the continuing strengthening of the rights of the individual. Preserving that shield requires Muslims to be tolerated, along with Satanists and Scientologists and Catholics. Break the protections to target anyone, and you are holding a paper shield while handing the enemy a torch.
Anyone who follows their logic past the first stop can find thi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I'd like to add something else. I say above that the 'bigot' can do X. Well, anyone can, really. And anyone probably has.
A comedian once joked that the reason the thing you're looking for is in the last place you look is obvious. Once you find it, you stop looking.
So once your logic reaches the place you want to go, it's common to want to get off.
It's a constant challenge to keep going and explore all the possible adventures and misadventures of a policy or philosophy. However, doing so yields positive results. At a minimum - a grain of wisdom.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Let us say that most religious terrorists are Muslim. I don't have these figures. It's a supposition for an argument.
One could then say that I am more likely to find a terrorist in a Mosque than in a Church. That's fine, as far as it goes.
However, like you pointed out, the chance of finding a terrorist at all is vanishingly small, much like the chance of getting hit by lightning in my living room. It's happened before, but it's bloody unlikely.
So because the probability of a Muslin terrorist killing you is remote, we should strip search little old ladies and pretend that they are just as likely to be terrorists. I understand there is almost no chance I personally will get killed by a terrorist, but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Apropros of nothin, yanno...
Them Syrians actually DO brew a decent beer - pick yourself up a bottle of Al-Chark sometime if you can find one.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus."
Hello,
Or we could all stop being pussies and accept that freedom carries some risk. I'm prepared to live in a world where we don't sift the contents of anyone's anus without a damn good reason.
Respectfully yours,
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Klesst:
but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.
*gloves off*
So Kles, are you too much of a pussy to go post your inane bullshit on strictly political boards? Is that why you choose to vomit on a Firefly site?
See, 'cause we have a community here. We basically respect each other. There are no mods.
If I *were* a mod here though, I'd kick your sorry pitiful ass outta here.
Shit. Sockpuppet stink.
Excuuuuuse me.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Klesst:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Let us say that most religious terrorists are Muslim. I don't have these figures. It's a supposition for an argument.
One could then say that I am more likely to find a terrorist in a Mosque than in a Church. That's fine, as far as it goes.
However, like you pointed out, the chance of finding a terrorist at all is vanishingly small, much like the chance of getting hit by lightning in my living room. It's happened before, but it's bloody unlikely.
So because the probability of a Muslin terrorist killing you is remote, we should strip search little old ladies and pretend that they are just as likely to be terrorists. I understand there is almost no chance I personally will get killed by a terrorist, but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.
The possibility of a "muslin" terrorist killing me is nonexistent. There are no terrorists made of muslin cloth (although there seem to be lots and lots and lots of anti-Muslim arguments around here which have all the strength and integrity of muslin...)
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
LOL!!!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure. Bad logic sucks. Check. Sticking "therefore" in a sentence does not automatically make it a logical statement. Check.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The problem with 'logic fail' is not that the logic is typically bad in and of itself. It's that the logic stops so that the adherent can leap to a desired position or course of action.
I guess I don't really understand what you're after with the logic stuff, Anthony, except the obvious: all logical statements should be questioned. Well, maybe that's obvious to you and me, and less so to the Tea Partiers and haters amongst us.
I definitely agree that church and state should not be in bed together. But nor are they allowed to masturbate. Which maybe is the problem. If the church would masturbate more often, maybe it'd quit chasing the state around.
BTW, the number is 6%. 6 of every 100 terror attacks are carried out by Muslims.
"...according to FBI files, which can be accessed through fbi.gov, only 6 percent of terrorists are Muslim. The remaining percentage of terrorist attacks on U.S. territory includes: Latinos at 42 percent, extreme Left Wing groups at 24 percent, Jewish extremists at 7 percent, Communists at 5 percent, and other terrorist organizations at 16 percent."
http://www.dailytitan.com/2010/09/13/only-6-percent-of-terrorists-are-
muslim/
Apparently, we should be more frightened of all those Jewish folks in NYC then we should of the Muslims.
But I guess the Tea Partiers have it right to live in terror of the Latinos and the lefties, huh? [/irony] [/bad logic]
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But I guess the Tea Partiers have it right to live in terror of the Latinos and the lefties, huh? [/irony] [/bad logic]"
Hello,
Yes indeed. I am dismayed to learn that I am probably a terrorist due to my Latino heritage.
But then, I suppose anyone who has seen the movie Machete would know what a ticking time bomb me and my people are.
I wonder if the Latino count includes the Basque, or if they get their own category. If it turns out the Basque are included, I fear they'll be none too pleased. Be wary of all Jai Alai players on your next flight.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I definitely wanna see that flick!
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
But then, I suppose anyone who has seen the movie Machete would know what a ticking time bomb me and my people are.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If I ever find myself sitting next to you on a bus, I will check the statistics, then dutifully cower in fear.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Yes indeed. I am dismayed to learn that I am probably a terrorist due to my Latino heritage.
Since I'm more or less a leftie, you should cower back, but only about 2/3 as much.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Well, it gets worse for you, Mal. See, I'm more or less a rightie, but because I understand and have sympathy for many leftist positions, and don't condemn them out of hand, I am considered a leftie anyway.
And so, double whammy for you.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:
Originally posted by Klesst:
but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.
*gloves off*
So Kles, are you too much of a pussy to go post your inane bullshit on strictly political boards? Is that why you choose to vomit on a Firefly site?
See, 'cause we have a community here. We basically respect each other. There are no mods.
If I *were* a mod here though, I'd kick your sorry pitiful ass outta here.
Shit. Sockpuppet stink.
Excuuuuuse me.
The laughing Chrisisall
Klesst might be the person sitting on their porch cursing at the damn kids to get off their lawn, but whether or not the experience is enjoyable for us does not alter the fact that Klesst has as much of a right on this board as does everyone else. Just the same as they have a right to their property and land, and we can't and shouldn't kick them off.
Freedom of religion means having to accept Muslims, and being the Muslims I know are alright people (specifically, their family fled Iraq when Saddam came into power), this isn't too bad a thing. Freedom of speech means having to accept people like Klesst, who while brusque and offensive, may sometimes have a point.
A dearth of opinions is the death of a board.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Klesst is a goof on us all. An unfunny one.
More like a troll than anything else.
Okay, let the troll drone. Trolls are beings too.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
[Coming back up the thread: Damn, Mal4 found the link, yes, it was the FBI website. So, given the logic proposed and the FBI’s figures, we should be strip-searching Latinos FAR more than Muslims, yes?
All that effort; well, I’m going to post what I found anyway--bear in mind the original question was answered, this is just ancillary material I found looking for it:]
Mal4, I can't remember the specific thread, either, nor can I find it. I did find the following at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents .It lists terrorist incidents going back to I believe 1800 or thereabouts. It doesn’t list who DID the act, but where the act was committed, and it shows acts of terrorism by many groups, not all religious, in fact more political than religious. That was my statement; not that the most acts of religious terrorism aren’t committed by Muslims, just that many groups commit/committed terrorism.
Another at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups lists terrorist organizations, with the caveat thatQuote:
There have been far more state-sponsored and lone-wolf terrorist acts throughout history than those committed for religion.
This listing does not include states or governmental organizations, which are considered under state terrorism, or unaffiliated individuals accused of terrorism, which are considered under lone wolf terrorism.
Lone-wolf terrorists like Timothy McVeigh have been responsible for most acts of terror in the United States. The McNamara brothers (two Irish-American brothers who bombed the Los Angeles Times building
As for non-Muslim terrorists, there have been many through history, including the KKK, IRA, Weather Underground, Aleph (Japanese), Hezbollah, Aryan Nation, AETA, Hamas, SLA, ALF and many others. We even have a law; Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act ( http://www.alternet.org/rights/141328/the_animal_enterprise_terrorism_
act%3A_the_most_dangerous_domestic_terror_law_you%27ve_never_heard_of/). As to religious terrorists in particular, even Buddhists have been involved (Sinhala Buddhist committed acts against Christians and Tamal, and Aum Shinrikyo— the sarin gas attacks—drew on Buddhism and Hinduism), along with Christians (Army of God—anti-abortion bombings and killings), Hindus and Jews (Jewish Defense League) http://terrorism.about.com/od/politicalislamterrorism/tp/Religious-ter
rorism.htm ).
Terrorism has existed since the Middle Ages. Historically, Muslims represent a small number of terrorist acts. Currently, they represent the largest, but if you take a historical point of view, there have always been terrorist acts, and always will be, long after those by Muslims are forgotten, as most of the others have been.
I remember a time when some of these were all the news, especially times when the SLA or IRA were the biggies; now it's Muslim extremists. The attacks of 9/11 were so horrific that it brought Muslim extremists to the fore, and we have become terrorized by them, a result of our own mentality rather than any facts concerning the US. History rolls on.
Anthony, your treatise on “logic fail” is absolutely beautiful, what I’d like to say but far better than I could ever say it. Thank you.
By the way, in my later search of the FBI, I found this about deaths of private Americans abroad in 2009:Quote:
So it looks like, even abroad, the chance of a US citizen dying as a result of terrorism is pretty tiny.
U.S. citizens worldwide killed as a result of incidents of terrorism: 9
U.S. citizens worldwide injured as a result of incidents of terrorism: 14
U.S. citizens worldwide kidnapped as a result of incidents of terrorism: 4
There’s a 2009 report put out by the National Counterterrorism Center ( http://www.nctc.gov/) which is the best. It has graphs and lots of details. According to it, worldwide, in 2009 the total deaths break down toQuote:
Deaths by Perpetrator Category
Tribal/Clan/Ethnic - 508I
Islamic Extremist (Sunni) - 9,280
Other – 154
Christian Extremist - 1,052
U
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If I *were* a mod here though, I'd kick your sorry pitiful ass outta here."
Hello Chris,
Freedom of speech means we have to tolerate people we don't like out in the world.
Of course, this is private space. Haken's space, I believe. If this was your site, you could choose who to invite here. You could also choose what rules of conduct would be followed here. Your fairness in implementing those rules would probably influence how successful the site was and what sort of atmosphere you could look forward to.
I personally am very selective about who I invite into my house, and how I expect them to behave. I suspect most people have some kind of restrictive rule about their personal spaces, who gets to share them, and how.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A Pakistani co-worker of mine used to have a phrase for peeps like Kles-
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If this was your site, you could choose who to invite here.
Stop da boolsheet.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the info Niki. Always good to have more facts, and you dug up a lot more than I did!
I think another good stat to add (if I had the energy) would be who the violence is acted on. All that Latino violence could be fodder for over-active white suburban imaginations, especially since such minds would assume the violence was aimed at THEM. Most likely, that's a lot of drug war stuff, Latinos killing Latinos, right? So it's not all aimed at the US.
More to the present point, I wander how many of those killings by Muslims were done to Muslims. Which certainly wouldn't make it all right, but would have some bearing on the question of how much the average American should be, according to logic, living in fear.
OK, that's some Sunday night rambling after a long lovely day. Sailing is fun, but I'm sleepy. 
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Statistically, you have a greater chance of drowning in a five gallon bucket, than meeting, much less ever taking harm from, some radical islam nutter.
Conversely, if you happen to be gay, pagan, or a minority, your chances of being violently confronted at least once by some radical christian are statistically high enough to qual you for a gun permit even in a may-issue state.
Heavens know, I've exchanged both words, blows and bullets before with the fuckers, and dickheads like William Krar slip right under the notice of the pissants which are our so-called protectors while they chase phantoms, whip up the booga-booga, or even *make* terror plots themselves out of nothing to justify themselves.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/09/blowback-provocation-and-
perpetual-war.html
It's all a matter of threat assessment, you don't take precautions against tripping on a curb and breaking your neck cause it's so damn unlikely, but you DO take precautions against say, an auto accident, cause it's statistically more so.
Oh, and believe me, if my niece were to swipe my login name, her atrocious grammar, leetspeak and complete and utter lack of technical knowhow (in fact, I just got virus-spam this morning, which means she's once AGAIN let her email account get loose, thanks to MySpace/Facebook exploits) would give her away all but instantly - I can't seem to convince her that she should apply the same standards to an email that she should a written letter and as a result trying to read that crap has me all but reaching for the Grammar Spork.
http://www.queenofwands.net/d/20040628.html
Her tech and PC knowledge is extremely limited cause her mom will not let her have a computer, or access to a phone, or friends over... cause she rightfully fears being legally called on some of her abusive behavior - I don't care that she is my sister or not, there's times I'd like to drag that girl behind a truck, as she has let that school and society put her in a position where she is abusive to her own offspring, and everyone BUT me seems to be ok with it, which disgusts me profoundly.
Wendy, former rescuee and self-adopted daughter, is the dangerous one, she can not only convincingly impersonate me online, if she keeps it short she can convincingly do my "voice" over the phone, too...
That don't bother me as much as it might, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that I am not even the original Fremdfirma - that torch was passed to me by the same guy who gave me the files on Synanon, and some other nasty stuff, and I suspect by the content and dating of some of them, he himself was not the original initiator of THAT investigation either.
And so on, and so forth.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AsLongAsThereIsEvil
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yer most welcome, Mal4; I learn as much looking things up on Google that people mention here as I do posting--and actually spend a lot more time at it. It's quite an education, and yes, I take most of what I read with a BIG grain of salt, nonetheless, I've learned tons.
That last one, National Counterterrorism Center, had a pie chart and statistics on victims of terrorism, too...I seem to recall something there and several other places that talked about the percentages of victims who were this or that. That NCTC had a ton of pie charts at the very end which broke terrorism down by all sorts of categories. Was interesting.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Klesst:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Let us say that most religious terrorists are Muslim. I don't have these figures. It's a supposition for an argument.
One could then say that I am more likely to find a terrorist in a Mosque than in a Church. That's fine, as far as it goes.
However, like you pointed out, the chance of finding a terrorist at all is vanishingly small, much like the chance of getting hit by lightning in my living room. It's happened before, but it's bloody unlikely.
So because the probability of a Muslin terrorist killing you is remote, we should strip search little old ladies and pretend that they are just as likely to be terrorists. I understand there is almost no chance I personally will get killed by a terrorist, but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.
Why is this the only post here that makes any sense?.....And you cunts mock it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Klesst is a goof on us all. An unfunny one.
More like a troll than anything else.
Okay, let the troll drone. Trolls are beings too.
The laughing Chrisisall
Why would being unfunny matter? First Klesst is funny...Come on "old lady's anus'"....Hilarious. The point that none of us are going to get blown up by sand-niggars, however thousands of others are/have, is fact. Read a paper, watch CBS EeeVin(meant to sound like the lion in wizard of oz), take head out of arse....the truth is with skully.........
pointingoutacockisall....onethatisnotonkwickoslipsisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ha! Your response to a post you find sensible is to call everyone a cunt, and you wonder why everyone thinks you're a trollish moron?
Originally posted by kaneman:
Why is this the only post here that makes any sense?.....And you cunts mock it.
I guess you'd have to not be a moron to see the irony.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And if you're a woman in college, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted before you graduate. So we ought to stop any new fraternities or dorms from being built, right? Frat boys are damaging a whole lot more human beings than Muslim extremists!
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Statistically, you have a greater chance of drowning in a five gallon bucket, than meeting, much less ever taking harm from, some radical islam nutter.
Conversely, if you happen to be gay, pagan, or a minority, your chances of being violently confronted at least once by some radical christian are statistically high enough to qual you for a gun permit even in a may-issue state.
Quote:Well.... I have to say that I was lurking that day, and noticed a difference. But I wouldn't have said anything even if I'd been posting. Not because of her as much of because of you. You have some variety in your presence here, and you're not someone a person calls out lightly, just because you seem to be trying something new.
Wendy, former rescuee and self-adopted daughter, is the dangerous one, she can not only convincingly impersonate me online, if she keeps it short she can convincingly do my "voice" over the phone, too...
Not to impune Wendy. The content of her posts didn't seem off, just her style. No caps, less paragraph breaks, slightly different wording. Stuff like that.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
oops
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:And if you're a woman in college, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted before you graduate. So we ought to stop any new fraternities or dorms from being built, right? Frat boys are damaging a whole lot more human beings than Muslim extremists!
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Statistically, you have a greater chance of drowning in a five gallon bucket, than meeting, much less ever taking harm from, some radical islam nutter.
Conversely, if you happen to be gay, pagan, or a minority, your chances of being violently confronted at least once by some radical christian are statistically high enough to qual you for a gun permit even in a may-issue state.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
Yeah, there's that logic stuff again. I like it so much I'm going to try to use it!
I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than I do of dying of AIDS. Hence, I need not be concerned about AIDS, and may forgeo condoms in favor of raw dogging dudes I meet in public bathrooms. And also, it is more likely that I'll be not robbed than robbed, so why lock my doors? I bet more folks who fail to lock their doors are not robbed than robbed, hence locking your door is dumb and fearful.
Am I getting close?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If all you're thinking about is yourself, then go ahead and leave your big screen TV out on your front porch, bone whoever you want with no protection, then drive your car into a tree. Have fun with that.
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than I do of dying of AIDS. Hence, I need not be concerned about AIDS, and may forgeo condoms in favor of raw dogging dudes I meet in public bathrooms. And also, it is more likely that I'll be not robbed than robbed, so why lock my doors? I bet more folks who fail to lock their doors are not robbed than robbed, hence locking your door is dumb and fearful.
But if you actually care about the society you live in, then maybe you'll take responsible, and yes, logical, measures to stop the spread of disease, and you won't recklessly force the cost of your health care on everyone else.
And if you give a shit about the freedoms that make your country great, you won't let pointless paranoia turn you into a sniveling coward, eager to snatch basic rights away from American citizens who represent absolutely no danger to you.
Using a condom or wearing a seat belt doesn't damage anyone else's life. Racism and biased hate does.
Get it, or was that beyond your logicalabilities?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think I'm just a-logical. I thought that using a condom would potentially affect someone else's life. For example, if I had AIDS and did not wear a condom while doing stuff with my privates, I could give someone else the AIDS, forever changing their life. Let me try again. I'm going to get really good at this. I'm going to wiki logic, thereby becoming an expert on making assertions and then coating them with a veneer of legitimacy by applying the meaningless words "logic" or "reason" to them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, kinda what I meant by saying the wearing a condom doesn't hurt anyone, and going bareback is not good for society.
Originally posted by mincingbeast:
I think I'm just a-logical. I thought that using a condom would potentially affect someone else's life. For example, if I had AIDS and did not wear a condom while doign stuff with my privates, I could give someone else the AIDS, forever changing their life.
Quote:I eagerly await the results.
Let me try again. I'm going to get really good at this. I'm going to wiki logic, thereby becoming an expert.
Wiki up some nice and twisted statistics as well, because logic is only as entertaining as the factoids it's built on.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, I spent 30 seconds looking at "logic" on wiki, and am now an expert. This is my second attempt.
According to FBI statistics (and wikipedia), blacks are more likely to be involved in violent crimes than whites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#cite_
note-24
Accordingly, whites commiting violent crime is not a legitimate issue. Discussing the subject of white violence evidences malice, racism and other types of evil intent.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mince, this shit you're slinging is purest troll, and you know it, don't you?
This has been the right's b.s. argument for 10 years: if we don't accept the Draconian, warcrime-lite methods they propose, then we're "doing nothing." No one is saying that terrorists are not a threat, only that the sort of threat they pose does not require repeal of the Bill of Rights, forcing fringe artists into self-financed hiding and racially profiling anyone whose skin is darker than John Boehner.
You're putting out a lot of energy for no greater purpose than to score points against those of us foolish enough to think "logic" means anything. I don't know what it is about the "turbaned menace" that turns the Mincingbeast into a clodhoppingtroll, but there it is.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i admire trolls immensely, and am flattered that you have accused me of being one.
I am currently engaged a quixotic crusade against logic, not muslims, although once logic is vanquished, faith will be the next to go.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:Quote:
Originally posted by Klesst:Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Let us say that most religious terrorists are Muslim. I don't have these figures. It's a supposition for an argument.
One could then say that I am more likely to find a terrorist in a Mosque than in a Church. That's fine, as far as it goes.
However, like you pointed out, the chance of finding a terrorist at all is vanishingly small, much like the chance of getting hit by lightning in my living room. It's happened before, but it's bloody unlikely.
So because the probability of a Muslin terrorist killing you is remote, we should strip search little old ladies and pretend that they are just as likely to be terrorists. I understand there is almost no chance I personally will get killed by a terrorist, but I don't want to see little old ladies get blown up because you're to much of a pussy to accept the fact that stopping Muslim terrorists requires looking in the Muslim population not in an old ladies anus.
Why is this the only post here that makes any sense?.....And you cunts mock it.
I find it hard to believe that a cunt like you would agree with a cunt like you.
Go Fuck Yourself!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have a greater chance of dying in a car accident than I do of dying of AIDS. Hence, I need not be concerned about AIDS, and may forgeo condoms in favor of raw dogging dudes I meet in public bathrooms.
Go for it. Stay away from kaneman and riverlove. I gave both of them aids.
Go Fuck Yourself!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're absolutely right, MB. You suck at logic. You missed the whole point of the statistics discussion above, and you're using the same exact stupid argument that Rappy was.
Oh, and you're not exactly tearing things up research-wise either. If you want to convince anyone of anything, find a better link.
ETA: Yep, HK. Mincingbeast is a'trolling. I wonder if these dopes realize that all they do is make themselves look backwards-ass stupid?
Unless you're meaning to be ironic, MB. In which case, you suck at being ironic. 
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Though I concede that I suck as a general proposition, in this case, it is logic itself that sucks. I used, but for superficial differences, the exact same stupid argument as Rappy, who used the exact same stupid argument as those he was arguing against.
And you're wrong about my link. As I stated earlier, the ability to wiki something makes me an expert on it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Mr. Beast,
After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I wonder if these dopes realize that all they do is make themselves look backwards-ass stupid?
Do they realize it? Wheee-doggies, they're fecken proud of it.
Look at a tea party, see if you can find a sign that isn't misspelled.
Go Fuck Yourself!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have now passed my limit. My irony/troll detector is maxed out and no longer operational. It's time to put on a Deadwood DVD and enjoy all the bad words. You know, because I don't get enough of them here.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello Mr. Beast,
After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
I suppose folks would expect me to advocate a Constitutional amendment declaring all Muslims to be pigs, hence unprotected by the law, and subject to smoking and glazing.
We are at the next step: name calling and unfettered dialogue (or in my case, monologues) on the subject. Maybe we'll reach a point were we can discuss Islam without folks feeling obliged to shriek "OMG 911 NEVAR FORGET!!!1" or "OMG U HATE MONGER"...but I hope not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HK, did you read the parts of the thread where Mincingbeast was arguing that "logic consists of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll?" This really isn't doing the alternate argument any favours.
As an aside, MB isn't a troll. A troll by definition is someone who contributes nothing to the community except riling people up and offending them. There are very few people here who fall under that description. Even kaneman is not one of them.
MB will play with people, and does use a good degree of shock humour, sophistry, and mocking by imitation to make a point, but this alone does not make a troll. I'm perhaps more likely to be a troll than anyone else is, as my contributions to the community are lacking in general.
As for the argument here, one side is correct in that it is very difficult to profile a possible subject of a crime with only rough age and height, and that efforts to catch dangerous criminals should try to be narrow in scope.
However, race and religion are actually still pretty general traits IMO, and not as useful in catching specific suspects as, say, a name, or a motive, or declared intention, or previously existing criminal record. I would think any one of those other factors would narrow the suspect pool down a good deal more than race or religion.
And *IF* declared intention, motive, and criminal record are the main factors we're using to sift suspects, then it's not necessarily discriminatory to also add race or religion into the profile, but rather a matter of convenience for identification. I think we might all be able to agree on this.
Whether this is what happens in practice is, I admit, questionable.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Same ole thing, HK. Rush is his God.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I don't know what it is about the "turbaned menace" that turns the Mincingbeast into a clodhoppingtroll, but there it is.
Or Beck.
Whatever.
Imma watch CHUCK now, hope you are as well. Nightynight.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Maybe we'll reach a point were we can discuss Islam without folks feeling obliged to shriek "OMG 911 NEVAR FORGET!!!1" or "OMG U HATE MONGER""
Hello Mr. Beast,
So the idea is that by pointing out the dangers of Islam and Muslim terrorists, the issue will become de-sensitized and make rational conversation possible.
And what would such a rational conversation look like, in a world where you wanted it to happen? What would you say about Islam in that world?
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
(Edited to remove unnecessary fake profanity.)
Quote:Dang it, Byte, why??? I never said MB was a troll, I said that his latest line of argument was trolling. There's a big difference, why do you feel the need to instruct me on crap I already know? Drives me up a wall. Here's a hint, Byte: if I believe someone to be a troll in the sense you mean it, I don't talk to 'em--like, ever.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
HK, did you read the parts of the thread where Mincingbeast was arguing that "logic consists of calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a troll?" This really isn't doing the alternate argument any favours.
As an aside, MB isn't a troll. A troll by definition is someone who contributes nothing to the community except riling people up and offending them. There are very few people here who fall under that description. Even kaneman is not one of them.
Quote:Thanks for the MB 101 class. Do you think I'm that clueless? Again, one bit of trolling does not make a person a troll.
MB will play with people, and does use a good degree of shock humour, sophistry, and mocking by imitation to make a point, but this alone does not make a troll. I'm perhaps more likely to be a troll than anyone else is, as my contributions to the community are lacking in general.
Byte, you do this on a semi-regular basis with me and I would appreciate it if you knocked it off for good and all. I like you, but I don't appreciate your instruction in remedial internet etiquette. In the context of this board I find your whinging at my crimes against tact rather outrageously misapplied.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You credit me with ideas; this is a mistake. Still, if I had an idea, it would be to desensitize everyone to everything.
in your hypothetical rational world, I would say something like "The theological structure of Islam makes justifying violence a lot easier than, say, the New Testament or whatever drivel Buddhists read. Let's have a frank discussion about this, and how we can avoid it." I would say this to a sockpuppet over my right hand, who would respond "Perhaps that is true, and perhaps we may, but aren't you stigmatizing innocent people by making blanket assertions about a faith and holding them to task for what their ancestors said and did?" And maybe then we'd have a discussion about the agony of the Reformation, and the awkward adolescence of the enlightenment, and how distressing it is to see a resurgence of pre-enlightenment ideas coming from both Muslims and Christians a like, and how we debase each other. And then we'd hold hands and snuggle.
actual likeness:
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have often thought that Islam could benefit from a reformation of some kind. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the sort of thing one can wish into being from the outside. It seems to me it's also the sort of thing that is constantly in danger of collapsing as long as pre-reformation materials are incorporated into the belief system.
Even in the Christian faith, the presense of antiquated practices that make some respond with loathing cause others to respond with yearning. Supposedly, Jesus Christ came to jettison the old way of doing things to a large degree. Despite this, I find many Christians lovingly cleaving to ideas present in the Old Testament that allow them to discriminate against and mistreat their fellow man.
We are probably unable to have a new prophet clear things up due to the book of Revelations (and similar cautions in the Quran) that say, "This is it. Anyone else who surfaces is an evil fraud." Of course, that didn't stop the Mormons, so I may be mistaken on that point.
As much as I hate to say it, the best hope to avoid religious extremism may be for religion to die. But then I wonder if suicide bombers wouldn't explode themselves in shopping malls due to a division on the issue of Global Warming or some non-religious principle.
My hope for a remedy is that secular living will provide a source of comfort so undeniable that religion will lose its grip on the psyche of people everywhere. As to how to MAKE it happen? I have no idea how to flip the mental switch in the human population. Western nations have provided comperably better living conditions to the Muslim nations of the world for several generations, yet that hasn't proved enough of an incentive to stamp out theocracies in the mideast.
I honestly think the best we can do for ourselves is to separate from those awkward regions of the world until they resolve their issues internally. The fewer ties we have to the mideast, the less cause we will have to feel threatened by their extremists. Meanwhile, back home, we can emphatically defend individual freedom as much as is practicable, to continue providing a counterpoint by example.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal4 - Ha!, by no means should folk live in fear, and instead of outlawing everything a girl could possibly defend themselves with, forcing dependance on all but useless and often abusive campus cops, most of whom are male, mind you...
I say install a fuckin weapons rack by the door of every female dorm.
Seriously, we vilify self-defense, make people helpless, and then condition them to submit to an aggressor to make it easier for the powers that be to fleece em - and of course criminals and other scum exploit that, why wouldn't they when we hand them pre-loaded victims on a silver platter.
Ever notice that most criminals and predators go into total mental lockup when they get any reaction BUT passive submission ?
And that folks who act immediately generally carry the day, because of this ?
Not that, yanno, violence solves everything, nor do weapons, but that conditioned-submission and vilification of self defense shit has GOT TO GO.
And of course, having a friend or two to back you up with is worth half a dozen weapons, cause it's more will than skill, but skill helps too.
Anyhows, my answer to a threat is never to just roll over, that kinda crap is how these problems got so bad - I might play along in the very rare case some shitheel has the drop on me, but all they gotta do is blink at the wrong moment...
As for Wendy...
She's good, I give her that, but not perfect no, and I did cheat...
Cause of closet-kid syndrome she has to use visual accessability software on her laptop, and it doesn't do caps, or it didn't (I color coded them with an HTML tag for her now) and I figured that'd hang her, lol.
I wound up cooking her dinner, eatin crow (not literally, but, yanno) and having to hear about it for damn near a week straight - it's not often anyone can get over on me so, and she's done it TWICE, meh.
I do kinda range from friendly-snarky, to all biz, to verbal rampages you can practically smell fire and brimstone rising from, but that's more a matter of how rough a week it's been, and adding a shot or two of booze tends to wear down my "play nice" filter, but I'll call that one up front most of the time.
Oh, and Anthony ?
Simple solution to that, simply force acknowledgement of the the plain and simple fact that if those books are in any way true, then "God" is a sick, twisted, evil fuck which gets it's jollies by pitting us against one another so that it can feed on the misery.
It's the only logical explaination that fits the facts.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Simple solution to that, simply force acknowledgement"
Hello Frem,
It sounds nice, but you can't force anything. Not in any way I'd like to explore, anyhow.
My own choice of Christianity is predicated on the belief that much of the source material is faulty and tampered with. So I've decided to 'pick and choose' the good stuff until God sets me straight. (If he is exactly as described in the good book, things look bad all over.) Unfortunately, most priests and preachers will recoil in horror at the idea of folks disregarding whole sections wholesale, or worse, assuming the book as a whole is largely inaccurate and flawed.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Anthony,
Have you done much/any delving into the subject of Gnostic Christianity? It largely predates even the Gospels and, I suspect, might very well be completely consistent with your understanding, even adding and amplifying some of your thoughts and beliefs as well.
Of course, there's a "pop" version of Gnosticism that you'd hate and need to wade through to get to the real juicy stuff, but such is the life of a scholar, no?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Uh, Mal, statistically, if you’re a WOMAN, you have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted some time in your lifetime, not just college women.
Mincing; it depends on where you live. I’ve never locked my door in my life, and never been robbed. The places I live almost never have such things. If I lived elsewhere, I’d never leave it Unlocked.
In a way, fearing being a victim of a terrorist attack is kind of like fearing being hit by lightning. There are a few things you can do to be safer, but if it’s gonna hit you, it’s gonna hit you. What exactly can any of us individuals DO to ensure our safety from Muslim terrorism? Avoid airplanes, subways, tall government buildings, or what? It’s one of the things that is most useless to take precautions about, in my opinion, because there ARE no viable precautions. I’ll take precautions against the things I CAN protect myself from, thank you. Otherwise, it’s living in fear.
Mal4 said it eloquently:Quote:
THAT is the biggest danger we face today as far as our country is concerned, and I take it very seriously, as should all of us who care about our OWN freedoms, too. The Papers Please law could affect people like me, with olive skin, just as much as a Hispanic citizen OR a Latino drug lord. Take civil rights from one, you up the chances of taking it from others.
And if you give a shit about the freedoms that make your country great, you won't let pointless paranoia turn you into a sniveling coward, eager to snatch basic rights away from American citizens who represent absolutely no danger to you.
Using a condom or wearing a seat belt doesn't damage anyone else's life. Racism and biased hate does.
Cav, I thought Mincing was teasing. And don’t you mean “anyone whose skin is LESS ORANGE” than Boehners? Tho’ I guess there’s not much racial profiling of orange-skinned people.
Isn’t what you’re talking about “deductive reasoning”? For example:Quote:
Isn’t that exactly what we’re seeing? Ergo:
I gave an inferences test to two large samples of students at my university. In both studies high RWAs went down in flames more than others did. They particularly had trouble figuring out that an inference or deduction was wrong. To illustrate, suppose they had gotten the following syllogism:
All fish live in the sea.
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they would likely tell you, “Because sharks are fish.” In other words, they thought the reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way, they don’t “get it” that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test.
This is quite dangerous, because it shows that if authoritarian followers like the conclusion, the logic involved is pretty irrelevant. The reasoning should justify the conclusion, but for a lot of high RWAs, the conclusion validates the reasoning. Such is the basis of many a prejudice, and many a Big Lie that comes to be accepted. Now one can easily overstate this finding. A lot of people have trouble with syllogistic reasoning, and high RWAs are only slightly more likely to make such mistakes than low RWAs are. But in general high RWAs seem to have more trouble than most people do realizing that a conclusion is false.
Muslims commit terrorism
Joe Schmoe is a Muslim
Joe Schmoe is a terrorist
Byte, you definitely don’t fit the description of a troll. What you left out is that part of being a troll is to be NASTY, in my opinion; and to post in order to get a rise, nothing else. That definitely doesn’t describe you. And you’ve made MANY contributions to discussions, so it doesn’t hold water. Me, I DO consider Kane (and Whozit) trolls...not always, but the vast majority of the time. They deliberately write in an ugly fashion, an
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
After discussing and acknowledging the threat of Islamic Terror, what is your next step? Is there any Islamic specific action you wish to take to counter the threat?
Good question, there are no real practicable + stomach-able solutions to counter this threat 'specifically' (doesn't stop Auraptor and others feverishly banging on about this issue without proposing any solutions). Well done to Klesst at least for suggesting a specific action: Muslims should be targeted for extra searching (although I think if you're a Muslim planning to board a plane you pretty much assume you'll get searched - I personally feel that's enough). Kaneman, interesting to hear you agreeing - I think Thomas Jefferson might have something to say about that.
One Islamic specific policy we Europeans are considering: whether to let Turkey join the EU (or whether to place certain special conditions of entry, like on Turkish migration to the rest of Europe). Before the war on terror Turkey was on course to join, now it's very up-in-the-air. There are quite a few pros: Turkey is a populous country, a growing economy, a secular democracy and a bridge between East and West. But a muslim majority nation...
Should we seek to preserve Europe as a continent of christian heritage, and limit demographic change that threatens or clashes with that?
I'm personally swayed by both arguments, but probably the latter more.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
It's interesting to hear that maintaining a Christian Heritage may be a goal of the EU. I hadn't heard that before.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I have often thought that Islam could benefit from a reformation of some kind. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that's the sort of thing one can wish into being from the outside. It seems to me it's also the sort of thing that is constantly in danger of collapsing as long as pre-reformation materials are incorporated into the belief system.
Even in the Christian faith, the presense of antiquated practices that make some respond with loathing cause others to respond with yearning. Supposedly, Jesus Christ came to jettison the old way of doing things to a large degree. Despite this, I find many Christians lovingly cleaving to ideas present in the Old Testament that allow them to discriminate against and mistreat their fellow man.
Here's the thing, to my view the reformation didn't modernise, tame or castrate christianity - it moved the faith closer to the essence of its holy texts, challenging the corruption and heresy (at that time) of the Catholic church, and its authority in general (encouraging the scripturally correct principle that every christian can relate to God without the mediation of a priest - 1 Peter 2:9).
So with regards to an Islamic reformation: it would arguably be a movement back towards the sacred Islamic texts. I'm not completely sure what that would look like but I'm not positive it'd be good. Some might even argue that Islam's current resurgence along more radical lines is its 'reformation'.
E.g. on the subject of the practice of women wearing headscarves:
See this video of Nasser's funeral in Cairo in 1967; when you can make out the women few (if any?) are wearing headscarves:
Compare it to this modern video, a walk down a Cairo street where most women are wearing them:
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Perhaps we should be wishing for a deformation, then? ;-)
While we share the opinion of what the reformation was for Christianity, its significance to us varies.
In my opinion, by removing the unique position that the Church had in standing between man and God, it cut the proverbial balls off of the church and allowed government to take shape without as much religious interference.
THAT was critical in forming truly secular governance. Overthrowing and diminishing monarchies was the next step in advancing the cause of the individual.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It's interesting to hear that maintaining a Christian Heritage may be a goal of the EU. I hadn't heard that before.
Yeah, I suppose it needn't necessarily be described in those terms (and not that many Europeans would choose to). 'Christian' heritage is more how I personally see it: in that Christianity has undoubtedly shaped Western society and values. Also it's a neat/easy way to outline Europe's eastern borders.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In my opinion, by removing the unique position that the Church had in standing between man and God, it cut the proverbial balls off of the church and allowed government to take shape without as much religious interference.
No, I agree: but I think a centralised, politically powerful religious institution (ie. the papacy) was never what Christianity was meant to be about. Of course it did happen, and was the only practiced Christianity for hundreds of years - I just view that as a natural human trend of people in power viewing religion as a potential tool to control populations, or whatever. So yes it cut the balls off the Catholic church of the time, and ensured a healthy distance between church and state - all the while going back to the essence of christianity.
Quote:
Perhaps we should be wishing for a deformation, then? ;-)
Hmm, I've just been looking into it more (head scarves), and I think it's pretty open to interpretation actually. From this Muslim site advocating head scarves - http://en.rafed.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1126:
quranic-verses-about-hijab&catid=143:hijab&Itemid=996 - the verses it cites are:
Quote:
So what do the Quran and Sunna have to say about women’s dress ?
“O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)
“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)
Which is pretty non-specific to me; I'm inclined to see it as firstly a (obvious) command to cover up sexual parts to all except relatives, and secondly, a general call to modesty. But apparently it depends on interpretation of the word 'ornaments' - which some interpret as referring to everything including eyes. The line that does it for me however:
"...that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof..."
"ordinarily appear therof" seems to mean ordinary, practical, non-sexual parts of the body: hands, face, arms, legs even...(if a woman wants to wear modest skirts)? It's hard to view a burqa being 'ordinary' in any way...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think a return to original Muslim beliefs would be a good thing...it's been prostituted for the agenda of the mullahs and political terrorists, which actual act in ways directly opposite to Mohmmed's teachings. They "preach" something distinctly different from what Islam was in the beginning and was intended to be...just as Christianity has done at times and I'm sure other religions as well.Quote:
Nor was Islam intended to be ruled the way it is and was by mullahs, but power will out, in any religion.
I think a centralised, politically powerful religious institution (ie. the papacy) was never what Christianity was meant to be about.
If people abided by true Islam, it would be a whole different story. And yes, the full chadri in particular actually BEGAN I believe in Afghanistan, as a way for shah's to keep their women from being coveted...then became fashion among the upper classes, as away you go. The mullahs have always used it as a way to control women.
As to the burka/chacri/purdah, its interpretation has been polluted over time:Quote:
The idea of the veil actually predates Islam:
Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities.Quote:
Best of all, as far as I'm concerned, would be doing away with religions entirely, or at the very least, minimizing their control of the population as much as humanly possible. I'm not sure whether more deaths have resulted from nationalism of religion, but I'd put my money on the latter. And it's not the religion's fault, it's how it's interpreted, used and abused by those who want to gain power, or in some cases, interpret it subjectively to match what THEY believe.
There is evidence that this type of dress was worn by some Arab and Persian women long before Islam. For example, the Roman African Christian Tertullian, writing in Chapter 17 of The Veiling of Virgins around 200 AD, praises the modesty of those "pagan women of Arabia" who "not only cover their head, but their whole face...preferring to enjoy half the light with one eye rather than prostituting their whole face." Strabo, writing in the first century AD, also refers to covering the face as a practice of some Persian women.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some good historical perspective.
Quote:
I think a return to original Muslim beliefs would be a good thing...it's been prostituted for the agenda of the mullahs and political terrorists, which actual act in ways directly opposite to Mohmmed's teachings. They "preach" something distinctly different from what Islam was in the beginning and was intended to be...
If that's true then there is some hope - and I think it's been largely the Saudi oil money that has propagated the more extreme strain of Islam. That's the bad thing about oil: it bestows success and influence on a culture that hasn't necessarily earned it. I think the best hope for the future is a Muslim country becoming successful and influential in its own right, through economic growth etc. Probably Turkey is the best candidate for this... so even if we don't let them into the EU I think we should help them, and promote strong business ties. A Muslim nation success story is in everyone's interests.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think a return to original Muslim beliefs would be a good thing...it's been prostituted for the agenda of the mullahs and political terrorists, which actual act in ways directly opposite to Mohmmed's teachings.
I recognzie I have very little credibility on this subject, because I am a mean-spirited Islamophobe, but I would suggest that
1) who's to say that our our interpretations of "original" Muslim beliefs are more accurate than those of the mullahs (who are getting their own religion wrong) and
2)who is to say that "original" Muslim beliefs are a good thing? They are a product of the 7th century when slave taking and slaughter were socially acceptable, and granted a theological gloss by Islam. Lots of Mohammed's teachings, and the sayings attributed to him, might be benign by the standards of his day, but are ugly to modern sensibilities.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you'd asked me 30 years ago, I would have said that organized religion would have fallen away by now, like a giant scab no longer needed.
Originally posted by Niki2:
as far as I'm concerned, would be doing away with religions entirely
Sad to see that I was wrong. It keeps getting picked at. Looks like it will never heal.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
1) who's to say that our our interpretations of "original" Muslim beliefs are more accurate than those of the mullahs (who are getting their own religion wrong)
A fair point. Just so long as you keep that attitude when you come across articles by Islamophobic polemicists and non-Islamic scholars titled something like "The TRUTH about Islam - What the Qu'uran really says".
Quote:
2)who is to say that "original" Muslim beliefs are a good thing?
Not necessarily a good thing, maybe an improvement :-/
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm not inclined to grant anti-islamic fanatics with the authority to define the scope of Islam. But some scholars are so...seductive. Like Raymond Ibrahim. He's dreamy and buff. And Egyptian.
I'm inclined to argue that the "original" meaning of any text, let alone one that was written almost a millenia and a half ago, is impossible to reconstruct and actually meaningless. What matters is practice--they way people related to and use the text. Of course, when the text in question is presented as the infallible word of god and the end of history, original meaning becomes extra problematic. Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"in some cases, interpret it subjectively to match what THEY believe."
Hello,
This reminds me of an incident from my early youth. One of my younger, bratty Cousins hit me, and I hit him back. This was at my grandmother's house, and he went crying to my grandmother to complain about this mistreatment.
My grandmother, who was very religious, asked me, "What does Jesus say to do when someone hits you?"
I said, "Turn the other cheek," with a triumphant tone.
And she said, disapprovingly, "Well, then?!"
And I was genuinely confused, and tried to explain, "He turned my cheek, and I turned his!"
I had, up until this point, misinterpreted the whole pacifist angle of Jesus Christ. The whole adage about turning the other cheek suddenly lost a lot of its allure to my young mind. :-)
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Surely you're not saying the bible was all sweetness and light compared to the qu'ran?? All that violence and incest and angry, judgmental god...? The qu'ran is actually far less violent and viciously judgmental, in its original form.
But yes, I, too, had hoped we could move past religion; it's original purpose was to appeal to the better nature of man (as well as give them an instruction booklet to live by and a god to look to for judgment); it's interpretation, just like any religion, has been to appeal to the worst nature of man, and, given I don't see us as having evolved much past our original mentality, I don't expect it will go away...maybe ever.
Your original point was a good one, KPO, in my opinion.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's quite a bit of violence in the Tanakh; one of its functions was a history, and as such it was full of the ugly things that men did to each other. I don't find many theological imperatives to do violence in it, but then again, its been ages since I touched a bible and being as that I just washed my hands...
But anyway, I defy you to support the following assertion:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
The qu'ran is actually far less violent and viciously judgmental, in its original form.
I reiterate my discomfort with making pronouncements about a text's "original form," from a different cultural context, a millenia and a half after the fact. Are you talking about the split between Mecca/Medina (both are original I'd argue), or do you not find a religion that aims to be universal and damns the unbeliever to be viciously judgmental or violent?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Arguing the comparative merits or the Quran vs. the Bible is like arguing about the number of blaster bolts in A New Hope versus Empire Strikes Back.
I promise that they both have a lot of blaster bolts.
--Anthony
Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews. I apologize for the inconvenience.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well, I'm not inclined to grant anti-islamic fanatics with the authority to define the scope of Islam.
No, I didn't think you would be.
Quote:
I'm inclined to argue that the "original" meaning of any text, let alone one that was written almost a millenia and a half ago, is impossible to reconstruct and actually meaningless. What matters is practice--they way people related to and use the text.
Hmm. I'm an atheist but I was brought up a christian, and was taught to read the bible not asking the question "What does it mean to me?" but rather "What did it mean to them (whoever Jesus/St Paul etc was talking to)?" I find it hard to believe honest Muslims would not be influenced by Mohammed's original meaning, if it was put to them and they had deviated from it. For example some people have suggested that Mohammed's wife didn't wear a headscarf... But of course entrenched tradition is always hard to shift...
Quote:
Of course, when the text in question is presented as the infallible word of god and the end of history, original meaning becomes extra problematic.
That's religion - what can you do?
Quote:
Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.
Is it so hard to accept that parts of the constitution might be bad/lacking? That it was good for its time but the founding fathers didn't know everything and we shouldn't use it as a blueprint for the country for eternity?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reconstructing original meaning is impossible. We may make educated guesses about what Mohammed's exhortation to "kill all infidels" meant to his first followers, or what the framers meant, so long as we acknowledge we're guessing--which is a difficult thing to do when we conflate original meaning and truth. Short of necromancy, we can't know. Moreover, necromancy ought only be used to raise the living dead--not settle arguments about what some asshole author really meant.
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Is it so hard to accept that parts of the constitution might be bad/lacking? That it was good for its time but the founding fathers didn't know everything and we shouldn't use it as a blueprint for the country for eternity?
Not hard for me, but hard for some, and certainly no harder than suggesting that a purported holy text is not the end of history and without flaw. Contrary to what some folks may say, flexibility is built into the US constitution--the same can't be said of the Bible or Koran.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Anthony's right, and of course there are no "religions" which don't damn the "unbelievers"--except buddhism as far as I know, which, again, is more a philosophy than a religion. We respect all religions and, given we have no "god", don't have any "nonbelievers" to condemn.
I respect the INTENT of all religions, but I'm not buddhist enough to respect what the religions became and how they are/were used.
I understand the use of “defy”, Mincing, but I’d rather “discuss”. I could be wrong, because I follow neither religion, but from what my research has gleaned, there’s more compassion in the Qu’ran than the Bible. This took forever, and I'm sure there are fallacies in either religion. I looked to find passages on several subjects to compare how they were dealt with; you might be able to see a pattern:
Both Qu’ran and Bible are difficult to translate. For the Qu'ran, owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points. Parts of it have been interpreted different ways by different people, some unintentionally, some deliberately. There are also inconsistencies (which any devoute Muslim will dispute until their dying breath), but there are inconsistencies in the Bible as well.
What most Americans/devout Christians don’t recognize is that “Allah” means “God”, and the followers of Mohammed considered themselves following the same God as Christians (and to an extent Jews). They had bad feelings for the Jews, given that the Jews crucified Christ, but even there, had compassion for them.Quote:
Regarding Jews and Christians:
5.82. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.Quote:
By the way, Christ exists in the Qu’ran, and was considered holy and a prophet by Muchammed, but not the “son of God”, and the holy trinity is rejected, in that only God stands above all. Thus
5.69. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.Quote:
Sura 3:45 (Al-Imran) - "The angels said to Mariam (Mary): 'Allah bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is al-Masih (Messiah), Isa the son of Mariam. He shall be noble in this world and in the next, and shall be favored by Allah.'"
When the angel appeared to Mary to announce the birth of Jesus, he said in Sura 19:19 (Mariam) - "'I am the messenger of your Lord,' he replied, 'and have come to give you a holy son.'"
Sura 3:49 (AI-Imran) - (Jesus is speaking) "I bring you a sign from your Lord. From clay, I will make for you the likeness of a bird. I shall breathe into it and, by Allah's leave, it shall become a living bird. By Allah's leave, I shall give sight to the blind man, heal the leper and raise the dead to life." It is only the Lord Jesus Christ who can do such things and by the Quran's own standard this identifies Jesus as the one with divine power and authority.
Sura 4:171 (Al-Nisa) - "Al-Masih (Messiah), Isa (Jesus) the son of Mariam, was no more than Allah's apostle and His Word which He bestowed on Mariam, and a spirit proceeding from Him." Jesus is the Spirit of God (Ruhull-llah) and the Word of God. Moses is called God's spokesman in the Quran, and Abraham is called the friend of God while Muhammed is called the messenger of God
9.30. The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
The Qu’ran considered “pagans” as the worst offenders of Allah’ unbelievers, but eve
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Is Klesst new? Cool, another chew toy.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Reconstructing original meaning is impossible.
I wouldn't say that. The authors of these holy texts had a specific meaning in mind when they were writing (or dictating, in Mohammed's case), and their aim in commiting it to paper was to communicate that meaning, and make sure it survived. Some times things may be a bit murky, but I doubt there are many passages in any religion that leave scholars completely baffled as to what the author was driving at. I'm not saying mis-interpretation doesn't happen often, obviously it does - but that's mainly because people's biases step in, not because the murkiness is impenetrable.
Quote:
We may make educated guesses about what Mohammed's exhortation to "kill all infidels" meant to his first followers
Yes okay, there is a problem here... Not so much with Mohammed's original meaning but due to the fact that his directions here and a lot of them generally seem to be very specific to the time period and situation of Mohammed's writing - when Islam was embyonic, and strategically on the defensive (so I hear). The problem is how modern day Muslims try to interpret these passages for their modern situations - because the real fact of the matter (in my view) is that these verses have no contemporary relevance, Mohammed was not looking ahead to the geopolitics of the future when he gave these directions. For example I don't think Mohammed foresaw religious clashes with christians and jews, because the qu'ran seems to have a special place of respect and non-slaughter for them, that isn't reserved for pagan/infidel adversaries.
Quote:
flexibility is built into the US constitution--the same can't be said of the Bible or Koran.
True, I'm not sure it would make much sense to religious people for their 'Word of God' holy texts to not be timeless. When it comes to what's written in the bible and the Koran - it is what it is.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Note that this is why I loathe strict constructionists of the US constitution.
I loathe them because they tend to want to pick and choose the parts they're "strict" about. Much like fundie Xtians do; they love the "Don't be gay!" parts of the Old Testament, but are amazingly mute about the verses surrounding it which prescribe the same death and damnation for anyone who cuts their hair, shaves, or has tattoos or piercings. But when someone points these things out, suddenly the Old Testament isn't important, because they go by the NEW Testament when it comes to such inconvenient "non-Christian" things that THEY like to do...
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 20:32 To AnthonyT:
Go fuck yourself.
On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME