If you believe in Islamophobia...

[DAPUNISHER]

Feel free to PM me if you feel the need.

I would say this though. I think your stance that being completely honest causing a problem would seem to imply they cannot take critism because they are too violent to not go to war over it. I think that is the problem we need to admit.

Christians are bigots, racist, xenophobic and everything else. The difference is that they now are usually constrained by their culture. Islamic culture is very different. The Bible says to stone a woman if she is raped if she traveled alone because it is her fault to not be accompanied. Almost no Christian would stand for that today. The % of Muslims that are okay with honor killings is sickening high.

If someone gets mauled because they poked a tiger, you would correctly blame the person. Tigers are animals and cannot think. We inherently look down on them because animals are inferior to the human mind. I don't want to put words into your mouth but you seem to be putting Muslims as the tiger here.

How did you get that from what I wrote?!? Dehumanizing other groups of people is a very old, nasty, tactic. Even if you somehow interpreted my response as indicating I would imply such horrible things, that is an extremely serious accusation to make. Particularly given the character assassination involved in viewing the response, in that context. And the lack of any substantive evidence upon which to base it. :thumbsdown:

 

[norseamd]

Tigers are animals and cannot think. We inherently look down on them because animals are inferior to the human mind.

Not true. Relative reality is what is the true reality.

 

[realibrad]

How did you get that from what I wrote?!? Dehumanizing other groups of people is a very old, nasty, tactic. Even if you somehow interpreted my response as indicating I would imply such horrible things, that is an extremely serious accusation to make. Particularly given the character assassination involved in viewing the response, in that context. And the lack of any substantive evidence upon which to base it. :thumbsdown:

Holding their feet to the fire and then the post where you said this.

As I wrote to Brad, I think that is too aggressive, unless war is the goal. But to elaborate a bit more, I do not think the radical elements will appreciate the honest dialogue. They are already railing there is a war on Islam by Western Civilization, it will fit the narrative. And that may result in otherwise moderate Muslims putting skin in the game.

It took what you said to mean that having an honest dialogue would incite violence. Is that not what you meant by what you said?

 

[buckshot24]

How did you get that from what I wrote?!? Dehumanizing other groups of people is a very old, nasty, tactic. Even if you somehow interpreted my response as indicating I would imply such horrible things, that is an extremely serious accusation to make. Particularly given the character assassination involved in viewing the response, in that context. And the lack of any substantive evidence upon which to base it. :thumbsdown:

I think he has a reading disability. He can't represent his opponent's statements with any level of accuracy. The other option is he's a liar.

 

[realibrad]

I think he has a reading disability. He can't represent his opponent's statements with any level of accuracy. The other option is he's a liar.

Think what you want, its your mind. But, there is still no evidence of the Jews being slaves in Egypt outside of the story in the bible.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I think he has a reading disability. He can't represent his opponent's statements with any level of accuracy. The other option is he's a liar.

Thanks for the confirmation that it is habitual, and not an isolated incident.

He is employing cheap debate tactics. He tries to put you on the defensive through deliberate misrepresentation of your writing. If you are defending yourself against baseless accusations, there is no need to intelligently address the substance of your response. No need to recognize any validity they may have, or construct a reply that could help you understand why you are likely mistaken on the topic. Instead? Imply you are worse than Hitler, and hope for one of several anticipated reactions.

That all leads to manipulating you via emotions. Well, Homey don't play that. Thus, I have concluded it is either a elementary attempt at debate, or projection. Neither of which stimulate a desire for further discussion. One bores me, the other I prefer not to consider seriously, as I am then guilty of the same offense they committed.

 

[realibrad]

Thanks for the confirmation that it is habitual, and not an isolated incident.

He is employing cheap debate tactics. He tries to put you on the defensive through deliberate misrepresentation of your writing. If you are defending yourself against baseless accusations, there is no need to intelligently address the substance of your response. No need to recognize any validity they may have, or construct a reply that could help you understand why you are likely mistaken on the topic. Instead? Imply you are worse than Hitler, and hope for one of several anticipated reactions.

That all leads to manipulating you via emotions. Well, Homey don't play that. Thus, I have concluded it is either a elementary attempt at debate, or projection. Neither of which stimulate a desire for further discussion. One bores me, the other I prefer not to consider seriously, as I am then guilty of the same offense they committed.

Look, you seem to have better things to do and thats fine. I literally quoted what you said and explained why I perceived what I did.

If you want confirmation about who I am and how I speak to people, then you may want to talk to almost anyone else who is a regular in P&N. Hell, even Rob would be able to back that I am not who Buck makes me out to be.

Just to give you some back story on Buck, he claims that evolution is a fairy tale and that it cannot create the complexity we see in nature. I spent days explaining evolution and giving him data and explaining that data. He then put me on ignore because I made a comment to someone else that people believe things on faith, such as the Jews being slaves in Egypt of which we have no archaeological evidence other than what is in the bible. That apparently was enough for him to shut down all discussion and block me.

If that seems rational to you, then its likely I would have no ability to discuss anything meaningful to you. If you really do want an honest opinion from someone like me, I am willing to have it.

 

[OCNewbie]

I would say this though. I think your stance that being completely honest causing a problem would seem to imply they cannot take critism because they are too violent to not go to war over it. I think that is the problem we need to admit.

...

If someone gets mauled because they poked a tiger, you would correctly blame the person. Tigers are animals and cannot think. We inherently look down on them because animals are inferior to the human mind. I don't want to put words into your mouth but you seem to be putting Muslims as the tiger here.

How did you get that from what I wrote?!? Dehumanizing other groups of people is a very old, nasty, tactic. Even if you somehow interpreted my response as indicating I would imply such horrible things, that is an extremely serious accusation to make. Particularly given the character assassination involved in viewing the response, in that context. And the lack of any substantive evidence upon which to base it. :thumbsdown:

To the part I bolded: Let me see if I can help. I earlier implied that being honest (totally, regardless if it offends, etc.) was the most important first step to your proposition of a "solution to the problem of the religion of Islam." - realibrad echoed my sentiments. Here's what I said, then following that is your reply to me:

Step #1 would be to be brutally honest about Islam and its doctrines. Also, to dismiss with the idea that all religions are the same, and therefore equally worthy of concern, especially when faced with the reality of which religion is the prevailing motivation for the majority of attacks against civilians in the world today, as credited by the perpetrators.

As I wrote to Brad, I think that is too aggressive, unless war is the goal. But to elaborate a bit more, I do not think the radical elements will appreciate the honest dialogue. They are already railing there is a war on Islam by Western Civilization, it will fit the narrative. And that may result in otherwise moderate Muslims putting skin in the game.

You're saying that total/brutal honesty is "too aggressive" and is the best first step if "war is the goal." You then say "that" (fitting the narrative with honest talk/critique of Islam) would even have the moderates jumping into the fray (the war, no?). That does sound a lot like criticism, ultimately, is not capable of being tolerated by those "moderate" Muslims, and that war (lashing out) would be the result. I don't see how that is entirely different than comparing the trigger of poking a tiger, to the trigger of criticizing someone's religion, and the result being retaliatory violence from either. In fact, I'd say the tiger has more reason to retaliate since it was physically touched.

 

[OCNewbie]

Just to sum this up again:

Weapon of choice for those who seek to address "the problem of the religion of Islam": Honesty

Suitable/expected response: War

That's essentially your argument, right, DAPUNISHER?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

To the part I bolded: Let me see if I can help. I earlier implied that being honest (totally, regardless if it offends, etc.) was the most important first step to your proposition of a "solution to the problem of the religion of Islam." - realibrad echoed my sentiments. Here's what I said, then following that is your reply to me:





You're saying that total/brutal honesty is "too aggressive" and is the best first step if "war is the goal." You then say "that" (fitting the narrative with honest talk/critique of Islam) would even have the moderates jumping into the fray (the war, no?). That does sound a lot like criticism, ultimately, is not capable of being tolerated by those "moderate" Muslims, and that war (lashing out) would be the result. I don't see how that is entirely different than comparing the trigger of poking a tiger, to the trigger of criticizing someone's religion, and the result being retaliatory violence from either. In fact, I'd say the tiger has more reason to retaliate since it was physically touched.

Still not going to defend myself against baseless accusations. And if you cannot see how calling humans animals is dehumanizing them, and hate speech, I cannot help you with that.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Part of your post was on topic, and not about me, and I will respond to it. Too aggressive unless war is the goal. For the very reasons others have opined about. It plays into the hands of the radicals that want this to appear to be a war on Islam. Denouncing Islam's teachings, will fit their narrative. That is im my opinion, and others in this forum - giving them "See I warned you they were against our religion, not just us!" ammunition.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Just to sum this up again:

Weapon of choice for those who seek to address "the problem of the religion of Islam": Honesty

Suitable/expected response: War

That's essentially your argument, right, DAPUNISHER?

No, answered you above. And it is not an argument, it is speculation.

 

[OCNewbie]

No, answered you above. And it is not an argument, it is speculation.

Your argument (based on your speculation) that honesty is a bad idea because it will lead to war.

 

[OCNewbie]

Too aggressive unless war is the goal. For the very reasons others have opined about. It plays into the hands of the radicals that want this to appear to be a war on Islam. Denouncing Islam's teachings, will fit their narrative. That is im my opinion, and others in this forum - giving them "See I warned you they were against our religion, not just us!" ammunition.

Short of turning the U.S. into an Islamic theocracy, with full implementation of Sharia law, the "radicals" (however those are defined) will always be at war with the U.S. To further ruffle their feathers with words won't change their goals with regards to the United States' future.

So, you would argue that it's a bad idea to ramp up the honesty, or to be more openly critical about the problems (as U.S. culture/society sees it) with Islamic doctrine, as that honesty will still be the trigger for moderates to become radicalized and support war against the U.S.? Words, no bombs, and nothing else?

Again, this "war" on Islam (if that's how they view it) is still a war being fought with words. Ultimately, you're inclined to believe this war of words will be turned into a war of weapons, initiated by Muslims against the U.S., for the critique of the religion they follow?

What is your proposed alternative? That we capitulate to those of the Muslim faith, around the world, that take offense when we're critical of the dehumanizing elements of Islamic doctrine? I suppose we should be the ones who compromise with our belief in freedom of speech in favor of them not being offended (because of the very real threat of them turning violent in response)?

 

[realibrad]

Still not going to defend myself against baseless accusations. And if you cannot see how calling humans animals is dehumanizing them, and hate speech, I cannot help you with that.

Now you are misunderstanding my comment about the animal. I said that if I understood your premise, which apparently I did not, then it would be like saying they were animals which is degrading. I was making the argument that they were not animals and they were thoughtful people that we should respect intellectually and have an open honest debate about their beliefs. I was not saying that you were calling them animals, but you were seeming to make the same argument.

You seem ready to jump on anything I say though, so I am not sure if you are going to believe anything I have said at this point.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Your argument (based on your speculation) that honesty is a bad idea because it will lead to war.

Honesty is your term for it. Denouncing of the tenants of an entire faith will be the term used by the radicals. We clear now?

 

[OCNewbie]

Honesty is your term for it. Denouncing of the tenants of an entire faith will be the term used by the radicals. We clear now?

So it won't be how specific elements of Islamic doctrine are actually being criticized that will radicalize the moderates, it's the way the already-radicalized will twist it to influence those moderates?

What if the criticism is focused on the parts of the religion the "moderates" don't adhere to or support anyway? It seems like you're painting the moderates as being fairly vulnerable to being manipulated by the radicals. I'm not sure if I agree, if that's your opinion.

Question: Do you believe that the religion of Islam should not be open for critique? If so, other than the threat of war/violence, why do you feel that way?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Short of turning the U.S. into an Islamic theocracy, with full implementation of Sharia law, the "radicals" (however those are defined) will always be at war with the U.S. To further ruffle their feathers with words won't change their goals with regards to the United States' future.

So, you would argue that it's a bad idea to ramp up the honesty, or to be more openly critical about the problems (as U.S. culture/society sees it) with Islamic doctrine, as that honesty will still be the trigger for moderates to become radicalized and support war against the U.S.? Words, no bombs, and nothing else?

Again, this "war" on Islam (if that's how they view it) is still a war being fought with words. Ultimately, you're inclined to believe this war of words will be turned into a war of weapons, initiated by Muslims against the U.S., for the critique of the religion they follow?

What is your proposed alternative? That we capitulate to those of the Muslim faith, around the world, that take offense when we're critical of the dehumanizing elements of Islamic doctrine? I suppose we should be the one's who compromise with our belief in freedom of speech in favor of them not being offended (because of the very real threat of them turning violent in response)?

Will always be at war, you wrote. I cannot see the future, you got lottery numbers too? My point here is you do not know that. And always is too ambiguous to sound like anything but hyperbole, which it is.

And you have far more confidence in the radicals ability to maintain impetus indefinitely, than I do. I think treating them as a police matter, and assuring the world Islamic community we know they do not represent them, is the most peaceful and civilized way forward.

And this part is odd

the "radicals" (however those are defined) will always be at war with the U.S.

You do not know how to define them, then pronounce them eternally at war with us. WTF M8? It has "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia." vibe to it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

So it won't be how specific elements of Islamic doctrine are actually being criticized that will radicalize the moderates, it's the way the already-radicalized will twist it to influence those moderates?

That is my speculation, yes.

What if the criticism is focused on the parts of the religion the "moderates" don't adhere to or support anyway? It seems like you're painting the moderates as being fairly vulnerable to being manipulated by the radicals. I'm not sure if I agree, if that's your opinion.

If not just a sector of a populace, but western government start in on the parts of Islam that they see as bad/wrong/negative whatev. It will be a cause for fear. A gifted orator can exploit fear. Turn it to hate even. And you do not need near everyone.

Example. I will invoke Godwin and play the Nazi card. They had what, 9 percent of the population? How did that work out. That is the type of historical precedence I base my speculation on. Hell, when asked how they did it they told us you just have to make them think they are being attacked. I hope my thoughts are clearer now.

Question: Do you believe that the religion of Islam should not be open for critique? If so, other than the threat of war/violence, why do you feel that way?

I am fine with it being scrutinized, criticized, etc. I think it is a poor place to channel effort though. The groups behind these attacks should be the focus. And we should ignore their stated manifesto, and pursue them like the criminals they are.

Replies in bold

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Now you are misunderstanding my comment about the animal. I said that if I understood your premise, which apparently I did not, then it would be like saying they were animals which is degrading. I was making the argument that they were not animals and they were thoughtful people that we should respect intellectually and have an open honest debate about their beliefs. I was not saying that you were calling them animals, but you were seeming to make the same argument.

You seem ready to jump on anything I say though, so I am not sure if you are going to believe anything I have said at this point.

I am happy to read that we misunderstood each other. Let us try to have a better dialogue.

OC asks pointed questions, challenges my thinking, seeks clarification. That is how a discussion is made productive. We may not come away with anything more than knowing the other person's POV. And yeah, a few digs are expected. But it should all be done with the level of decorum we would extend to each other in person.

If my responses to OC left you with question yet, about my views, feel free to engage me further.

 

[realibrad]

So it won't be how specific elements of Islamic doctrine are actually being criticized that will radicalize the moderates, it's the way the already-radicalized will twist it to influence those moderates?

That is my speculation, yes.

What if the criticism is focused on the parts of the religion the "moderates" don't adhere to or support anyway? It seems like you're painting the moderates as being fairly vulnerable to being manipulated by the radicals. I'm not sure if I agree, if that's your opinion.

If not just a sector of a populace, but western government start in on the parts of Islam that they see as bad/wrong/negative whatev. It will be a cause for fear. A gifted orator can exploit fear. Turn it to hate even. And you do not need near everyone.

Example. I will invoke Godwin and play the Nazi card. They had what, 9 percent of the population? How did that work out. That is the type of historical precedence I base my speculation on. Hell, when asked how they did it they told us you just have to make them think they are being attacked. I hope my thoughts are clearer now.

Question: Do you believe that the religion of Islam should not be open for critique? If so, other than the threat of war/violence, why do you feel that way?

I am fine with it being scrutinized, criticized, etc. I think it is a poor place to channel effort though. The groups behind these attacks should be the focus. And we should ignore their stated manifesto, and pursue them like the criminals they are.

Replies in bold

I agree that the government should have no part in the conversation of morality. Countries like France are only making things worse by banning clothing they feel is wrong.

I think what I am saying and others here too, is that far too many people think its wrong to criticize the parts of Islam that many would consider bad. They believe its bad to do this because its bigoted, its not. Killing a woman because she was raped is morally wrong. Christianity calls for doing just that in some cases. I can say without a doubt that no woman should ever be killed for being raped.

When you read about some of the punishments of Sharia Law, and then you see polls done by Pew that show the following, its worrying.

I am all for having a debate on the merits of this poll and the standards they held themselves to, but, if this poll is accurate, then that is far too many people that either are ignorant of Sharia or are horrible. Sharia, like old Christian laws, are horrible.

I can see that you are viewing what I am saying through the perspective of assuming I'm a Bigot. Try reading what I am saying through the assumption I am looking at data and drawing conclusions. If you have data that counters the ideas I have expressed, then please provide it to me.

Extremists use religion to justify the horrible things they want to do. When religion becomes more moderate, it becomes a lot harder to get people to follow violence on a large scale. Islam influences their culture far more than many seem to believe. Before you can moderate the culture, you need to help moderate the religion. You do this the way that other religions have, and that is to get people to not believe the violent parts are valid. You can only do that through discussion. No law is going to stop extremists and their views.

 

[OCNewbie]

Will always be at war, you wrote. I cannot see the future, you got lottery numbers too? My point here is you do not know that. And always is too ambiguous to sound like anything but hyperbole, which it is.

You sure did get hung up on that one word. I guess I should have also clarified that my "always" didn't mean before Islam materialized as a religion, back before ~610 A.D. I also don't mean in a billion or so years, when the Sun gets so big that the earth is no longer inhabitable. However, as long as Islam exists in its current form, it's safe to assume that Islam will always be spread by the sword, as it was by Muhammad, and as it has been for the last 1400 years.

And you have far more confidence in the radicals ability to maintain impetus indefinitely, than I do. I think treating them as a police matter, and assuring the world Islamic community we know they do not represent them, is the most peaceful and civilized way forward.

When you say a "police matter", are you saying what I think you're saying, in that we should address "radical" Islam militarily? How do you militarily dispose of an ideology? You can't bomb away beliefs. I think you underestimate just how much of the world's Muslim population would probably qualify under your (apparent) definition of "radical".

And this part is odd You do not know how to define them, then pronounce them eternally at war with us. WTF M8? It has "Oceania was at war with Eurasia; therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia." vibe to it.

My point was that your definition of "radical" Islam and mine aren't necessarily the same. In fact, I don't think there is any one consensus definition of what constitutes radicalization of the religion of Islam; it's a loose definition. That said, I think it's clear that whatever one's definition of "radical" Islam is (especially for westerners), it would include the elements of viewing all non-Muslims and non-Islamic states as enemies, and justified targets for jihad/holy war.

 

[IGBT]

Another word for brain dead is fear. There aren't many Muslims where I am, but there's lots of fear mongering Christians. Would you please kill all of them for me. Mass murder is the proper response, no, when the other guy is evil. And I know better than all others on this planet, what evil is. Hahahahahahahaha. Kill kill!!!!!!!!!!

If you are really so afraid to live, why brick yourself up in a cave instead of wishing death on the rest of the human race. Think of the children who aren't mentally ill yet.

Fear turns people into shit. And where, do you suppose, you will find the enlarged amygdalas?

..disagreeing with concepts or a philosophy is not the same as fearing it. Although the mental disorder called liberalism fails to understand that.

 

[Blanky]

Islam is strongly associated with lack of free speech, authoritarian regimes, anti-intellectualism (both science and art), and oppression of minorities (not just racial, but any other kind such as religious or sexual). A nihilist would accuse one of such views as being an islamophobe, I suppose, but it's not an accurate statement as a phobia is by definition an irrational fear. Fearing something based on facts and objective analysis cannot be irrational.