Hillary: Muslims 'Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism' (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/20/hillary-muslims-have-nothing-whatsoever-to-do-with-terrorism-n2082980)
Quote"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."
A Presidential Candidate.
Pr126 ... must be tough dealing with all the anti-anti-Muslims who don't know you, but you know them. Just ignore them, particularly politicians.
Quote from: Baruch on November 21, 2015, 03:07:41 AM
Pr126 ... must be tough dealing with all the anti-anti-Muslims who don't know you, but you know them. Just ignore them, particularly politicians.
Ignoring them is not an option. It is your future and the next generations future is at stake.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 03:38:37 AM
Ignoring them is not an option. It is your future and the next generations future is at stake.
When the Republican lizard people took over from the Democrat pod people ... all was lost.
Quote from: pr126 on November 20, 2015, 11:33:49 PM
Hillary: Muslims 'Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism' (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/20/hillary-muslims-have-nothing-whatsoever-to-do-with-terrorism-n2082980)
A Presidential Candidate.
George Bush said essentially the same thing. It's simply the politically correct thing to say, although it's starting to sound hollow. NPR reported in depth on European Muslims speaking out against their violent brethren a couple of days ago, which is highly unusual for NPR, probably because until now, there hasn't been much of this to bother reporting. What this means, I'm not sure. I'm still unwrapping the onion.
I agree with her. But Christianity is absolutely no different in this regard.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 21, 2015, 08:06:23 AM
I agree with her. But Christianity is absolutely no different in this regard.
I know. You are so right.
Except Christians are missing out on beheading, mass murders, rape, enslaving, but I am sure this will come soon.
Or maybe the media is just supressing the news? Somebody should have noticed by now?
Politicians have constraints: one of them is being able to get elected.
Now about political correctness: It's very similar to when there is a recession - no responsible politician wants to say there is a coming recession as this announcement would impact negatively the economy, which would be irresponsible. I believe that Hillary falls into that category: saying that Islam is evil would not only impact negatively her electability but also would alienate many Muslims who are non-violent and would be at risk from the loonies in our society. It's the right thing to say (it's pc, but a necessary one). Having said that, I hope that Hillary will have the guts to identify the current spate of terrorism as Islamic terrorism, something that Obama has failed to do.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 08:16:18 AM
I know. You are so right.
Except Christians are missing out on beheading, mass murders, rape, enslaving, but I am sure this will come soon.
Or maybe the media is just supressing the news? Somebody should have noticed by now?
You don't know American Christians very well. Left Behind? They can't wait for apocalypse (to exterminate their neighbors with extreme prejudice ... and we are highly armed), same as these other death worshippers (Muslim radicals). But the American Christians haven't gotten their sign ... the army of Russia or China has to be on the doorstep of Jerusalem ... then they will go Helter Skelter per the Jesus look-alike ... Charles Manson.
Quote from: Baruch on November 21, 2015, 09:58:17 AM
You don't know American Christians very well. Left Behind? They can't wait for apocalypse (to exterminate their neighbors with extreme prejudice ... and we are highly armed), same as these other death worshippers (Muslim radicals). But the American Christians haven't gotten their sign ... the army of Russia or China has to be on the doorstep of Jerusalem ... then they will go Helter Skelter per the Jesus look-alike ... Charles Manson.
So what the heck are those AMERICAN Christians waiting for? An RSVP?
Let loose the dogs of war.
Or this is just an imagination? Wishful thinking? Leftist hive mind?
I call bullshit.
If the [American] Christian fundamentalism is as strong as of the adherents of the RoP we sure would see some manifestations of that. Piles of dead bodies, stoning of adulterers, executing homosexuals, rape, torture, beheadings.
So far nothing. Why is that? Does the NewTestament commands eternal warfare against non Christians?
I don't know why this only happening in America?
What are you people smoking?
i do wonder why is the pc culture so in, in america.
i expected politician to start demonizing muslim but instead you got this pc culture.
i wonder how long it will last
Quote from: CloneKai on November 21, 2015, 11:15:03 AM
i do wonder why is the pc culture so in, in america.
i expected politician to start demonizing muslim but instead you got this pc culture.
i wonder how long it will last
PC exists in all cultures, even yours. The people who are PC, don't usually realize it's PC. They just think it's correct. But the definition of PC is kind of a wispy. I've heard a couple of definitions from experts (who don't even agree), so over the years, I've decided it's the kind of think that you know it when you see it. Rigid cultures in the Mideast seem extremely into political correctness. You see Saddam walking down the street, you cheer, even if he raped your daughter, or your friends will shun you if you don't cheer (an example of PC as per my own definition so it may not be the politically correct definition of "politically correct"). :biggrin:
Politicians are very tuned into their own political correctness. They assume politically correct positions, but their PC is just tied to popularity. Their motivations are purely manipulative and calculating. I don't really call this political correctness. It's more like hiding your true identity, something that skilled politicians have mastered... until they get caught having an extramarital affair with some bimbo, which happens a lot.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 11:04:01 AM
So what the heck are those AMERICAN Christians waiting for? An RSVP?
Let loose the dogs of war.
Or this is just an imagination? Wishful thinking? Leftist hive mind?
I call bullshit.
If the [American] Christian fundamentalism is as strong as of the adherents of the RoP we sure would see some manifestations of that. Piles of dead bodies, stoning of adulterers, executing homosexuals, rape, torture, beheadings.
So far nothing. Why is that? Does the NewTestament commands eternal warfare against non Christians?
I don't know why this only happening in America?
What are you people smoking?
Read some history books.
From a purely logical perspective, she's right. A terrorist doesn't have to be Muslim to be a terrorist, and a Muslim doesn't have to be a terrorist to be a Muslim.
You could trying making the claim about the Islamic faith in general and not Muslims, at which point it becomes subjective. But isn't the point of religion what you do with it, not what it claims?
Mermaid wrote:QuoteRead some history books.
And that will confirm that
today Christians STILL engage in mass murders, stoning of adulterers, executing homosexuals, rape, torture, beheadings, slavery?
What are you smoking?
Quote from: SGOS on November 21, 2015, 12:01:16 PM
PC exists in all cultures, even yours. The people who are PC, don't usually realize it's PC. They just think it's correct. But the definition of PC is kind of a wispy. I've heard a couple of definitions from experts (who don't even agree), so over the years, I've decided it's the kind of think that you know it when you see it. Rigid cultures in the Mideast seem extremely into political correctness. You see Saddam walking down the street, you cheer, even if he raped your daughter, or your friends will shun you if you don't cheer (an example of PC as per my own definition so it may not be the politically correct definition of "politically correct"). :biggrin:
Politicians are very tuned into their own political correctness. They assume politically correct positions, but their PC is just tied to popularity. Their motivations are purely manipulative and calculating. I don't really call this political correctness. It's more like hiding your true identity, something that skilled politicians have mastered... until they get caught having an extramarital affair with some bimbo, which happens a lot.
Don't you need politics to have pc thing
i don't think it applies to dictators.
in our culture you call it taboos. like no one talk about sex because its a taboo. or in politics, not talking about separating our churches from the state, everyone already knows that is one of the worst possible thing that can happen.
but it doesn't feel the same, of course it depends on the definition of the term pc.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 12:24:47 PM
Mermaid wrote:
And that will confirm that today Christians STILL engage in mass murders, stoning of adulterers, executing homosexuals, rape, torture, beheadings, slavery?
What are you smoking?
So what do you call what's happening in Africa? Are they not "True Christians"?
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 12:24:47 PM
Mermaid wrote:
And that will confirm that today Christians STILL engage in mass murders, stoning of adulterers, executing homosexuals, rape, torture, beheadings, slavery?
What are you smoking?
Christians aren't more evolved versions of Muslims ... I just heard a couple of rednecks discussing things at the restaurant where I had breakfast ... it wasn't pretty. So are you incapable of making contemporary anthropological observations? A lot easier than dealing with the psyops that is history.
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 11:04:01 AM
So what the heck are those AMERICAN Christians waiting for? An RSVP?
Let loose the dogs of war.
Or this is just an imagination? Wishful thinking? Leftist hive mind?
I call bullshit.
If the [American] Christian fundamentalism is as strong as of the adherents of the RoP we sure would see some manifestations of that. Piles of dead bodies, stoning of adulterers, executing homosexuals, rape, torture, beheadings.
So far nothing. Why is that? Does the NewTestament commands eternal warfare against non Christians?
I don't know why this only happening in America?
What are you people smoking?
Answering you and CloneKai ... you aren't Americans. Not even Americans understand America. What chance do you have of doing so? Like trying to find order in turbulence. Just wait until Satan/Putin tries to invade Jerusalem .. then pow ... right in the kisser!
Quote from: CloneKai on November 21, 2015, 12:25:14 PM
Don't you need politics to have pc thing
i don't think it applies to dictators.
in our culture you call it taboos. like no one talk about sex because its a taboo. or in politics, not talking about separating our churches from the state, everyone already knows that is one of the worst possible thing that can happen.
but it doesn't feel the same, of course it depends on the definition of the term pc.
At first glance, by definition, politics might be necessary, since "political" is already included in the terminology. But in English there are semantic definitions of "politics" used in more than one way. Office politics doesn't have anything to do with government in the usual sense, but it does have to do with management. In lay terms it means kissing the ass of your superior, or just getting along with influential co-workers. Management is also closely aligned with government. So I think politics exists in a dictatorship too. Also, it should be noted that politics includes a much broader range of behaviors than simply campaigning for office and voting. It involves complex array of lobbying, voting, manipulating, lying, distribution of propaganda, and on an on. And some of those behaviors exist in a dictatorship. How do you quiet rebellion? How do you placate the masses? It's all part of politics in any government.
PC is a relatively new term. It's always been there, but it's recently become part of public awareness. It is usually used as a derogatory description of someone. But the thing about political correctness is that it can be either true or false, in spite of what the term suggests. Just because some liberals (usually it's applied to liberals) voice politically correct positions, doesn't mean they are actually correct. Often they are sound ideas beneficial to all. Sometimes they are more like posturing for the consumption of peers.
Conservatives also have politically correct views. If you are a republican in a red neck state, it would be politically correct to call for discrimination towards gay people. It's also politically correct to call for prudence in spending, which conservatives falsely claim to have a monopoly on. And prudent spending makes sense to most everyone, even most economists. While prudence in spending is a virtue (no argument there), it is often a hidden agenda for the redistribution of wealth to favored political contributors. So in a way, political correctness is a meaningless position.
Political corruption can work out pretty well in the end ... as any bio of President Truman could tell you. The only question is ... is your family on the local gravy train or not?
Quote from: Shiranu on November 21, 2015, 01:10:38 PM
So what do you call what's happening in Africa? Are they not "True Christians"?
But they are a just tiny minority of extremists. You cannot judge a whole group of people because a few radicals.
The vast majority are moderate and peaceful.
Gross generalisation. Bigot! Racist!
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 01:48:42 PM
But they are a just tiny minority of extremists. You cannot judge a whole group of people because a few radicals.
The vast majority are moderate and peaceful.
Gross generalisation. Bigot! Racist!
Yes, Africa's diabolical plot to raise the average melanin content of humanity, has to be stopped at all costs! Bwahaha
Quote from: pr126 on November 21, 2015, 01:48:42 PM
But they are a just tiny minority of extremists. You cannot judge a whole group of people because a few radicals.
The vast majority are moderate and peaceful.
Gross generalisation. Bigot! Racist!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/fd1TSJqq3b4GI/giphy.gif)
No one is accusing Christians in the first-world of being violent because of the terrorists groups of Christians murdering throughout Central Africa just as ISIS is doing in the Middle East. No one is accusing Christians in the first-world as "silently supporting" terrorism as the anti-balaka come into towns and massacre Muslims, forcing them to convert or be mutilated and killed. No one accuses Christianity of a religion that can never be changed because in Africa the murder homosexuals and "witches".
The only one who does anything remotely like that is your ilk; your little stab only pointed out that you are doing exactly the same thing, just replace "African Christians" with "The In Vogue Boogieman Of The Day". When you say those things about Christians because it's done in Africa, it looks ridiculous... the point I think you were trying to make. Yet when you say the exact same thing about Muslims, suddenly it is rational.
I shale end this with some quotes from the Qu'ran...
QuoteThen he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."(NIV)
QuoteThe sons of Judah also captured 10,000 alive and brought them to the top of the cliff and threw them down from the top of the cliff, so that they were all dashed to pieces.(NASB)
QuoteThen a man of God came and spoke to the king of Israel, and said, “Thus says the LORD: 'Because the Syrians have said, “The LORD is God of the hills, but He is not God of the valleys,†therefore I will deliver all this great multitude into your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD.’†And they encamped opposite each other for seven days.
So it was that on the seventh day the battle was joined; and the children of Israel killed one hundred thousand foot soldiers of the Syrians in one day. But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; then a wall fell on twenty-seven thousand of the men who were left. (NKJV)
QuoteWhen the Israelite army finished chasing and killing all the men of Ai in the open fields, they went back and finished off everyone inside. So the entire population of Ai, including men and women, was wiped out that dayâ€"12,000 in all. For Joshua kept holding out his spear until everyone who had lived in Ai was completely destroyed. (NLT)
QuoteNow go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " … He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword.(NIV)
QuoteSamaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open. (NRSV)
Man, the Qu'ran is violent... wait, that was the Bible. But I thought only Muhammad had a monopoly on the, "Violent Warlord" market and that is what set Islam apart... hmmm...
Clinton here sounds pretty much just like ISIS. "If you do this, you are not really a Muslim". I'm sorry, but Hillary nor ISIS get to decide who the "real" Muslims are. You can be a Muslim and be violent, and you can be a Muslim and be non-violent. Killing someone doesn't make you non-Muslim just like doing the same doesn't make you a non-Christian. To those saying they agree with Clinton here, do you think the prison population in the US is mostly non-Christian? No? Then how can you possibly agree with Clinton here? Muslims obviously have something to do with terrorism. It's not the self proclaimed atheist arabs doing the damage. The only way you can possibly think Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism is if you think these Muslim terrorists don't count as real Muslims.
Clinton doesn't believe this herself anyways guys, so the few of you that agreed are agreeing with a position that she doesn't even hold in reality lol. She is saying this to get the Muslim vote, and because it makes sense to suck up to Islam. It will trick a bunch of people into thinking she is pro Muslim, even though her plan is to start wars in the Middle East and fuck shit up even worse for the Muslims living over there.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 21, 2015, 08:06:23 AM
I agree with her. But Christianity is absolutely no different in this regard.
you agree that muslims have nothing to do with terrorism... in light of a recent terrorist attack by muslim jihadists.... wtf man?
Shillary clinton does a disservice to everyone avoiding to name the problem just to remain politically correct and keep her voters. The jihadist interpretation of the islamic sacred text is a plausible one so it does have something to do with it, we need to at least recognize that so we can begin propping up a counter extremist narrative that relies on peaceful interpretations of texts and the intellectual destruction of all the interpretations that go against human rights and secularism since the latter ones hold the moral high ground.
There's clearly a problem of islamist terrorism denying that is just stupid and helps no one.
The problem with scripture ... is that there is stuff in there that some people don't like. Or that can be interpreted violently by violent people. So lets burn all the books and papers and Internet records ... nobody may write anything in any medium unless it is approved by the Pope of Pacifism ... and if you violate his holy dictatorship, he will justifiably kill you. Sounds like National Socialism to me ;-( First burn books, then burn people ;-((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wELrtx8NxoU
Get over speech and writing you don't like. Don't give a break to anyone who uses speech or writing as an excuse ... an excuse for violence. Convict them of violence, not reading ... and liquidate their asses for that. Otherwise something written on the Internet today, will be dug up 1000 years from now, and used to form a violent cult ... because some idiots think that G-d wrote it ;-(
A Canticle for Leibowitz ... https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/a-canticle-for-leibowitz/id1052602357?mt=11
It is always preferable to blame a peaceful person for the violent behavior of their great grandparents, while excusing the violence of another because their great grand parents were peaceful.
Quote from: Baruch on November 21, 2015, 03:56:22 PM
The problem with scripture ... is that there is stuff in there that some people don't like. Or that can be interpreted violently by violent people. So lets burn all the books and papers and Internet records ... nobody may write anything in any medium unless it is approved by the Pope of Pacifism ... and if you violate his holy dictatorship, he will justifiably kill you. Sounds like National Socialism to me ;-( First burn books, then burn people ;-((
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wELrtx8NxoU
Get over speech and writing you don't like. Don't give a break to anyone who uses speech or writing as an excuse ... an excuse for violence. Convict them of violence, not reading ... and liquidate their asses for that. Otherwise something written on the Internet today, will be dug up 1000 years from now, and used to form a violent cult ... because some idiots think that G-d wrote it ;-(
A Canticle for Leibowitz ... https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/a-canticle-for-leibowitz/id1052602357?mt=11
dunno if you were responding to my last post, but i was not calling for the destruction of the texts, rather the intellectual destruction of the violent interpretations of them by showing with arguments their moral, pragmatic and philosophical failures. And also promoting the more peaceful interpretations to prevent the radicalization of the youth. I believe in the free market of ideas so if people want to preach their radical shit they are free to do so but we should not let it go unchallenged, we should respond with reason and honesty not hate and demonization.
Mauricio - no not directed against you or anyone in particular. I just caught a whiff of book burning and thought crime is all.
Again, a failure to distinguish three concepts: Muslims, Islam, and Islamic extremism.
Quote from: mauricio on November 21, 2015, 03:06:26 PM
There's clearly a problem of islamist terrorism denying that is just stupid and helps no one.
Nobody is denying that. Nobody.
There is clearly a problem with blaming the wrong groups for it.
QuoteThere's clearly a problem of islamist terrorism...
Quote from: Mermaid on November 22, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
Nobody is denying that. Nobody.
Actually, that seems to be exactly what Hillary is denying. I accept that it's for political reasons, and I can even be sympathetic to her reasons for doing so, but if the thread title is an accurate quote, what she is saying is false. Of course, she's a skilled politician, and all of her comments, accurate or not, will be explained away later with, "What I meant was...," or "Bla, bla, bla...," but the quote as it stands, taking away any presumed nuance of perception or personal interpretation, is flatly untrue.
This is nothing new in political speech, of course, but the precise clarity of the wording, makes the quote remarkable for a politician, because it creates a perception of undeniable intention on Hillary's part.
Quote from: Atheon on November 21, 2015, 11:21:38 PM
Again, a failure to distinguish three concepts: Muslims, Islam, and Islamic extremism.
True, but the fact is that they are so intimately linked and the lines between each is more or less blurred, that it's difficult to separate each one as if they are completely independent of each other. Take the so-called "moderate" Muslim who doesn't care that certain members of his own faith does violent things in the name of Islam - the so-called "Islamic terrorist". Through this kind of apathy, or his own claim that his religion was hijacked by someone violent, is he guilty for not taking any action? or do we absolve him of any responsibility? As an individual, he's not responsible for the action of someone else, but that's a Western concept, of which Islam doesn't want to be part of. Why does the West have to deal with Islamic terrorism, when Islamic states are less inclined to do so, even though many Muslims are themselves victims of this Islamic terrorism? And the religion "Islam" itself has deep problems like no other religion as its founder was not only a religious figure but a warrior who went on a rampage and subjugated the tribes that lived in the ME in his own times. The Quran is a prescription to conquer, and peace only comes about when the world is submitted to the will of Allah. And so this combination of war/peace, defined in that particular way in what is taken to be the final words of God lends itself to all sorts of interpretations. Are we to believe that Islam is a religion of peace?? Regardless of what the so-called "moderate" Muslim thinks, do or not do, the West must be very vigilant towards an enemy that can act like a chameleon.
If you are an atheist, why don't you hate Christians? You say you are even handed ... but the biggest spider in Europe isn't ISIS, it is the Vatican.
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2015, 10:39:36 AM
If you are an atheist, why don't you hate Christians? You say you are even handed ... but the biggest spider in Europe isn't ISIS, it is the Vatican.
That's food for thought, but the claim (the biggest spider) is debatable at this point in time. I dislike ISIS and Islam for many of the same reasons that I dislike Christianity, and furthermore, asking, "Why don't you hate Christians," is a straw man that requires a false assumption. And the assumption that atheists must hate Christians, or Muslims for that matter, is irrelevant. Like 'em or hate 'em isn't the issue here. It's about the questionable logic of a political claim.
I have never bought into the apologetics for comparing evils of Islam to the evils of Christianity because both are illogical concepts. You say that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. OK, but how does that excuse Islam? It doesn't excuse Islam anymore that pointing at ISIS excuses Christianity. It isn't relevant.
Quote from: Atheon on November 21, 2015, 11:21:38 PM
Again, a failure to distinguish three concepts: Muslims, Islam, and Islamic extremism.
Muslims are believers in various interpretations of Islam, one of those is jihadism. There's a relation between this elements, so to claim any of this elements " have nothing whatsoever to do with...'' is very weird at best and disingenuous at worst.
Quote from: Mermaid on November 22, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
Nobody is denying that. Nobody.
There is clearly a problem with blaming the wrong groups for it.
mmm hillary said muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism that's plainly false. It is denying the problem of jihadism and islamism within muslim groups.
She could have said the truth instead and talk about how religions have multiple interpretations and how the islamic text can easily be interpreted to justify acts of terror but that this is only a minority whitin the islamic community that we should work together to defuse.
Quote from: josephpalazzo on November 22, 2015, 09:50:13 AM
True, but the fact is that they are so intimately linked and the lines between each is more or less blurred, that it's difficult to separate each one as if they are completely independent of each other. Take the so-called "moderate" Muslim who doesn't care that certain members of his own faith does violent things in the name of Islam - the so-called "Islamic terrorist". Through this kind of apathy, or his own claim that his religion was hijacked by someone violent, is he guilty for not taking any action? or do we absolve him of any responsibility? As an individual, he's not responsible for the action of someone else, but that's a Western concept, of which Islam doesn't want to be part of. Why does the West have to deal with Islamic terrorism, when Islamic states are less inclined to do so, even though many Muslims are themselves victims of this Islamic terrorism? And the religion "Islam" itself has deep problems like no other religion as its founder was not only a religious figure but a warrior who went on a rampage and subjugated the tribes that lived in the ME in his own times. The Quran is a prescription to conquer, and peace only comes about when the world is submitted to the will of Allah. And so this combination of war/peace, defined in that particular way in what is taken to be the final words of God lends itself to all sorts of interpretations. Are we to believe that Islam is a religion of peace?? Regardless of what the so-called "moderate" Muslim thinks, do or not do, the West must be very vigilant towards an enemy that can act like a chameleon.
Yes, all you Gentiles look alike and talk alike and hate Jews alike (Sarc) More inscrutable than Chinese.
Quote from: SGOS on November 22, 2015, 11:29:13 AM
That's food for thought, but the claim (the biggest spider) is debatable at this point in time. I dislike ISIS and Islam for many of the same reasons that I dislike Christianity, and furthermore, asking, "Why don't you hate Christians," is a straw man that requires a false assumption. And the assumption that atheists must hate Christians, or Muslims for that matter, is irrelevant. Like 'em or hate 'em isn't the issue here. It's about the questionable logic of a political claim.
I have never bought into the apologetics for comparing evils of Islam to the evils of Christianity because both are illogical concepts. You say that Christianity is just as bad as Islam. OK, but how does that excuse Islam? It doesn't excuse Islam anymore that pointing at ISIS excuses Christianity. It isn't relevant.
Islamaphobia is a mental condition ... it doesn't equate to atheism. I have no problem with atheism.
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2015, 07:45:42 PM
Islamaphobia is a mental condition ..
If Islamaphobia is a mental condition, so is racism, bigotry, vegetarianism and the preference for kosher. It is mere opinion that can be changed with education or a change in ones psychology. Islamaphobia is a mental condition as much as being catholic is.
Quote from: aitm on November 22, 2015, 08:10:44 PM
If Islamaphobia is a mental condition, so is racism, bigotry, vegetarianism and the preference for kosher. It is mere opinion that can be changed with education or a change in ones psychology. Islamaphobia is a mental condition as much as being catholic is.
A phobia isn't an ideology. Being kosher (in a modern sense) is simply hygiene. It is scientific. Being a racist is an ideology, it isn't a form of insanity either. A phobia (of any kind) is a medical condition. Your Newspeak fails.
Quote from: mauricio on November 22, 2015, 06:51:39 PM
mmm hillary said muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism that's plainly false. It is denying the problem of jihadism and islamism within muslim groups.
She could have said the truth instead and talk about how religions have multiple interpretations and how the islamic text can easily be interpreted to justify acts of terror but that this is only a minority whitin the islamic community that we should work together to defuse.
This. Most of the Muslims I know (all of them?) would have no problem with that and/or have said something similar themselves; infact I would wager most of them would respect her more if she would actually address the issue rather than try to sugar coat it and make it seem like Muslims are some mystical unicorns that poop rainbows and could never put a foot wrong.
But to be fair to her... she is consistently a two-faced politician on basically every topic she has opened her mouth about so nothing new here.
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2015, 08:13:32 PM
A phobia isn't an ideology. Being kosher (in a modern sense) is simply hygiene. It is scientific. Being a racist is an ideology, it isn't a form of insanity either. A phobia (of any kind) is a medical condition. Your Newspeak fails.
Islamaphobia is not a real phobia, you fail. It is a made up word in an effort to convince some ^ that a fear of deranged fanatics is a phobia instead of a precaution. Islamaphobia is as real as judaphobia, or catholophobia, baptistphobia, buddaphobia, or gayphobia. Get real.
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2015, 08:13:32 PM
Being kosher (in a modern sense) is simply hygiene. It is scientific.
LOLOL…..egads….kosher is now hygiene,..lordy, thats rich. Polish the old pole much eh? LOLOL….scientific… yeah….. old goat herders thinking the sky was water and thus gutting an animal is a certain way is scientific…..oy vey.
Quote from: Baruch on November 21, 2015, 04:49:55 AM
When the Republican lizard people took over from the Democrat pod people ... all was lost.
Show me one single majority Muslim country where Muslims are tolerant, peaceful and non-violent, and they don't live by legal ideas of justice which isn't barbaric. One which does not have social policies which aren't reprehensible? Islam is a deadly menace wherever it exists!
(http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af34/pr126/naziphobia_zpsp01y77p8.jpg)
Quote from: aitm on November 22, 2015, 08:58:09 PM
Islamaphobia is not a real phobia, you fail. It is a made up word in an effort to convince some ^ that a fear of deranged fanatics is a phobia instead of a precaution. Islamaphobia is as real as judaphobia, or catholophobia, baptistphobia, buddaphobia, or gayphobia. Get real.
Well now, everyone is a medical doctor ... congratulations! But a real doctor might diagnose fleas ;-)
I was just watching The Bunker ... and Pr126 ... I must say ... you are ready to join the Fatherland in our holy Lebensraum on the Eastern Front. Clash of civilizations? Some people here, ironically, are more tribal than I am. The extra large letters remind me of those great Nuremberg party rallies of yore. Today Atheistforums ... tomorrow Facebook!
Dear Baruch, Your posts excel in quantity, not in quality.
Now now boys, you two hug and make up, or I'll have to get my spankenheimer
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2015, 07:45:42 PM
Islamaphobia is a mental condition ... it doesn't equate to atheism. I have no problem with atheism.
For something to be a phobia, it must be driven by fear to such a degree that it becomes debilitating. Unfortunately, the word "Islamaphobia" gets carelessly thrown about to include anyone who has an issue with Islam. It has become a "fashionable", although sloppy defense of Islam and much of its associated nonsense. Even someone referring to "Islamic nonsense" could be accused of Islamaphobia. But this knee jerk criticism itself is as harmful as the thing it imagines.
If the neighbor gets pissed off because your dog shits in his yard, that doesn't mean the neighbor is Cynophobic. You can't assume that he's afraid of dogs. He's more likely just tired of cleaning up the dog's shit piles.
Quote from: pr126 on November 22, 2015, 11:07:43 PM
(http://i991.photobucket.com/albums/af34/pr126/naziphobia_zpsp01y77p8.jpg)
This is true, but Christianity is no less barbaric TODAY in countries such as Papua New Guinae and much of Africa, where ignorance reigns supreme.
My ex is dog phobic because a dog once took the food off her paper plate when she was little. So please give me a pressure gauge to measure "debilitation". My ex isn't completely debilitated, but she will never be comfortable around dogs.
Quote from: Baruch on November 23, 2015, 01:01:50 PM
My ex is dog phobic because a dog once took the food off her paper plate when she was little. So please give me a pressure gauge to measure "debilitation". My ex isn't completely debilitated, but she will never be comfortable around dogs.
WTF are you blabbering about?
Quote from: pr126 on November 20, 2015, 11:33:49 PM
Hillary: Muslims 'Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism' (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/20/hillary-muslims-have-nothing-whatsoever-to-do-with-terrorism-n2082980)
A Presidential Candidate.
Yes and no......I agree with her empathy and yes, most Muslims are peaceful. But this is a mistake all religions make.
It does not take a majority to cause problems, it only takes a big enough minority to cause problems. The Muslims who DO denounce violence, are still using the same Koran others use to justify violence. But the same can be said for Christianity. There are Black Baptists who voted for Obama, who is certainly a very empathetic man worthy of voting for. But there are also White conservative Baptists, who use the same bible, to justify murdering abortion doctors and denying gays equal rights, and denying livable wages for workers.
Islam still as far as the region goes, is still stuck in the past, and the Koran is the source of their morality, just like the Bible is used by many different sects of Christianity. The west became more civil because the west learned to water down holy books and cherry pick it to justify civility and common law.
So while certainly someone like Malala is not my enemy, the Koran was also the same book Bin Ladin used to justify 9/11.
Ann Frank said something like "In spite of everything, I still believe humans are good at heart". I agree, but even that doesn't constitute evidence for Yahweh, or any God. I value that because of her empathy, not her religion.
Humans certainly are capable of wanting peace and being peaceful. I simply think religion is a huge distraction to the empathy that we are all capable of.
Quote from: Brian37 on November 23, 2015, 01:44:10 PM
Yes and no......I agree with her empathy and yes, most Muslims are peaceful. But this is a mistake all religions make.
It does not take a majority to cause problems, it only takes a big enough minority to cause problems. The Muslims who DO denounce violence, are still using the same Koran others use to justify violence. But the same can be said for Christianity. There are Black Baptists who voted for Obama, who is certainly a very empathetic man worthy of voting for. But there are also White conservative Baptists, who use the same bible, to justify murdering abortion doctors and denying gays equal rights, and denying livable wages for workers.
Islam still as far as the region goes, is still stuck in the past, and the Koran is the source of their morality, just like the Bible is used by many different sects of Christianity. The west became more civil because the west learned to water down holy books and cherry pick it to justify civility and common law.
So while certainly someone like Malala is not my enemy, the Koran was also the same book Bin Ladin used to justify 9/11.
Ann Frank said something like "In spite of everything, I still believe humans are good at heart". I agree, but even that doesn't constitute evidence for Yahweh, or any God. I value that because of her empathy, not her religion.
Humans certainly are capable of wanting peace and being peaceful. I simply think religion is a huge distraction to the empathy that we are all capable of.
i don't think people moralities comes from books, i am more inclined to believe they justify their moralities using religious books.
more often than not, religious people seems to have same moralities as their imaginary sky daddy has, and then they do some Olympics worthy mental gymnastic to show that their holy scripture actually backs their version of absolute morality.
((Using ... instead of comas because my coma key is broke now...)
Quote from: Brian37 on November 23, 2015, 01:44:10 PM
Yes and no......I agree with her empathy and yes, most Muslims are peaceful. But this is a mistake all religions make.
It does not take a majority to cause problems, it only takes a big enough minority to cause problems. The Muslims who DO denounce violence, are still using the same Koran others use to justify violence. But the same can be said for Christianity. There are Black Baptists who voted for Obama, who is certainly a very empathetic man worthy of voting for. But there are also White conservative Baptists, who use the same bible, to justify murdering abortion doctors and denying gays equal rights, and denying livable wages for workers.
Islam still as far as the region goes, is still stuck in the past, and the Koran is the source of their morality, just like the Bible is used by many different sects of Christianity. The west became more civil because the west learned to water down holy books and cherry pick it to justify civility and common law.
So while certainly someone like Malala is not my enemy, the Koran was also the same book Bin Ladin used to justify 9/11.
Ann Frank said something like "In spite of everything, I still believe humans are good at heart". I agree, but even that doesn't constitute evidence for Yahweh, or any God. I value that because of her empathy, not her religion.
Humans certainly are capable of wanting peace and being peaceful. I simply think religion is a huge distraction to the empathy that we are all capable of.
Here is my problem with that; there are plenty of atheists who are... bluntly... assholes and no where even remotely empathetic. And there have been atheists who use their atheism as an excuse to commit violent acts. Yes there is no core dogma for an atheist to follow... but even given that people find a way to use atheism as justification to be a dick.
I think if we are going to blame the ideology for religion then the same has to be done for nearly anything... people commit violence in the name of conservatism because they feel it's refusal to change means it endorses violence as a solution to stop change. People commit violence in the name of progressivism because they feel that the need for change can justify hurting others. One could easily argue that these ideologies justify violence because of how absolute they tend to be and that there are branches of these ideologies that blatantly call for violence.
I think we use "religion is political!" when it's convenient to us and turn around too often and say "religion is religion with no outside influences needed!" when it's convenient for that narrative. Yes the Qu'ran... Bible... Torah... Hindu texts... etc. that call for violence... yet the fact that people can also twist the words of Buddha into excuses for violence or justifications for serfs and a oligarchy... or can twist "equality" into throwing Jews and disabled people into gas chambers... shows that even the most peaceful of ideologies can be twisted to violence just as easily as an ideology that is blatantly violent (as the Abraham religions are). Likewise the religions of Abraham can just as easily be twisted into something peaceful and beautiful.
To address religion as the cause of evil is... to me... trying to treat the symptom and not the disease. All ideologies are inherently violent because people are inherently violent. All ideologies are inherently peaceful as well because people are inherently peaceful. While the ideology may lend itself to violence easier than others... the fact that we have some absolutely horrendous religions that are now peaceful (Judaism/Christianity/Western Islam ... and also Hinduism [which I admire but must confess is really fucked up]) shows that it is obviously not the religion that is the problem but rather something deeper.
Tl;dr - Blaming religion is taking the easy way out and trying to put a band-aide on a severed arm.
Quote from: SGOS on November 23, 2015, 01:22:13 PM
WTF are you blabbering about?
He does get caught up in….er……something.
Quote from: aitm on November 23, 2015, 05:20:40 PM
He does get caught up in….er……something.
Just giving concrete examples ... that disprove denialism.
Quote from: Baruch on November 23, 2015, 07:00:56 PM
denialism.
stop being silly denialism Egypt. *ba-dum-tish*
Quote from: Baruch on November 22, 2015, 11:18:17 PM
Well now, everyone is a medical doctor ... congratulations! But a real doctor might diagnose fleas ;-)
I was just watching The Bunker ... and Pr126 ... I must say ... you are ready to join the Fatherland in our holy Lebensraum on the Eastern Front. Clash of civilizations? Some people here, ironically, are more tribal than I am. The extra large letters remind me of those great Nuremberg party rallies of yore. Today Atheistforums ... tomorrow Facebook!
show us a DSM listing for Islamophobia, and I'll show you a frog who dissects humans for science.
http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/08/islamophobia-is-not-a-neologism-anymore-its-mainstream/
Whoops, looks like any time a large segment of the population decides to play "doctor", they get to tweak our language in any way it may suit them - ain't it good to be the majority!
Well ... one side was claiming there are no phobias ... just negative preferences.
My dictionary includes Anglophobia, Germanophobia and Francophobia ... though I don't have any of those conditions. I don't have Islamophobia, Judeophobia, Christophobia etc ... and not even xenophobia. So I am not a good test case. Others will have to volunteer to give their testimony ... and have. Though if I had Madamoisellephilia ... I wouldn't bother to seek a cure ;-)
An example ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francophobia ... got Freedom-fries?