I lack a formal education and credentialing in scatology and thus am unable to make a reasonable conclusion about whether eating shit is or is not good for me, apparently.
That's a shitty analogy.
It's more like if you are a lawyer and don't understand exactly all the complex physics behind some rocket or whatever, you can rely on expert witnesses. You can also argue the facts (that guy's rocket landed on X). As well as pure logic (if in a line you have two points A and C, then a point in-between them B, must be crossed en route, whenever you go from A to C).
In this thread I have argued facts. For instance if people talk about petting dogs, I cited to the Malaysia newspaper as counterevidence that Muslims are all so cool with petting dogs. I've also linked to surveys in Islamic countries (though such surveys are undoubtedly flawed, they are all we've got and hell, if a country is influencing its citizens so much that they feel compelled to lie on such surveys then that itself says something).
I have also cited indirectly to scholars who DO know about Islam and the Quran. The guy cited in the Atlantic article is an expert among experts, for instance. And though this didn't make it into the Atlantic article, the fact of the matter is that there is indeed solid basis for Daesh's actions not only in the Quran but also the sunnah and hadith. They may have overreached on some things, but the core of their belief is in fact quite Islamic, and it's hard to say that their interpretation of Islam is any less valid than others'. This doesn't mean most Muslims are bad people; one could argue that many Muslims aren't that serious about their religion, the same way that many Catholics aren't very serious (by taking the Lord's name in vain, stealing MP3s, going against the Pope's advice on contraceptives, not attending church or praying that regularly, etc.).
I've also argued on logic. E.g., saying a book was the word of God and was not modified and should not be modified encourages sticking to "version 1.0" reductionism/fundamentalism and never upgrading or adjusting to modernity.
Therefore I'd argue that zero of my posts in this thread require decades of toil studying sharia law. I base them on facts, empirical evidence, and the words of independent scholars.
Meanwhile we have this guy spending much of his time arguing that others are "bigots."
http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=2340814&pp=25
He criticizes others by saying they are "bigots" who have "misinterpreted" Islam. The implication is that HE has spent years studying Islam and is some sort of expert on Islam. This seems doubtful given his post history which demonstrates no deep understanding of Islam himself. But what is REALLY damning, in my opinion, is how he doesn't even care to address his knowledge deficiency. He literally does not know and does not seem to care about WHY people are doing the things they are doing in Daesh. Literally. See his posts about how he doesn't care about the Dabiq prophecy and doesn't seem to "get it"; that understanding an enemy would be valuable in finding ways to combat it.
When he's finally called out on this, he gets defensive. Instead of addressing how he is not an authority on Islam and how his "don't know don't care" attitude is problematic, he deflects and attempts to shift the focus instead. No, we won't play that game. Let's focus on how this guy calls other bigots and on what basis he does so.
Facebook
Twitter