Liberal_L33t posted:Those religiously centered groups are not "the opposition" to western exploitation or policies in any meaningful sense. The Israel/Palestine issue is the only matter of social justice that Islamist groups are even remotely involved in, and in that issue their collective efforts have been so incredibly counterproductive that they don't (or shouldn't) get any credit on that account. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever, being both factually untrue in several respects, and also irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:02 |
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Counterpoint: You're Effectronica That's what we call an "ad hominem" argument, which rather weakens your positions. It's irrelevant because it claims to argue that Islamist groups are not opposed to Western imperialism, but then talks about social justice for some reason.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:That's because we're arguing with different criteria. Being notionally opposed to western imperialism does a movement or ideology no credit whatsoever on its own. Mao and Pol Pot were opposed to western imperialism - does that mean you think they and their ideology were good for Asia or had any particular redeeming qualities? We weren't until you decided to wriggle your way out yet again. Clearly, I need to tighten my hands around your throat if I get a good grasp on you in the future. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2015 20:29
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Again, let's flip this question around. Can anyone give me an example of a religious text (aside from maybe the Old Testament) which is less charitable to people of other faiths, talks more about waging war against them, levys more legal restrictions on them, or is more aggressive in its urges to proselytize? Let's look at history honestly here. Islam didn't spread by convincing people on an intellectual level. It was spread through a mix of military conquest and economic pressure, always very coercively, in sharp contrast to the organic growth of various pagan faiths, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. This falls on deaf ears, but Hinduism and "various pagan faiths" (sic) did not grow "organically" in the sense you are describing here, or else Buddhism did not grow "organically". And in any case, as people pointed out, much of Islam's spread occurred "organically". Of course, you're a stupid, ignorant sack of poo poo who believes that all religions are based on a single central text.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
In the middle of the 19th century, anti-Catholic and anti-immigrant organizations formed a political party in the USA, the Know-nothings or American Party. At the time, the Pope had declared Catholicism incompatible with liberal republicanism, and the majority of American bishops agreed with him and argued that the American republic should be overthrown. Given that, was persecution of Catholics in the USA acceptable?
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 04:41
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:This is actually not such a bad analogy, since there were a few reasonably prominent Catholic extremist movements running around overthrowing governments at the time; the Carlists come to mind. But A) the Know-nothings persecution of catholics never amounted to anything legally, and was limited to disorganized thuggery, and B) these people had some legitimate concerns, albeit entangled with racism, considering that the Pope you are alluding to was one of the shittiest assholes ever crapped out by the Vatican and more responsible than any other single religious leader for the putrid politics of the current-day Catholic church. This was a world before Hitler or Stalin - in fact, I think that Pius IX might have been one of the greatest villains known to civilization, at the time. In that context, an overreaction against Catholicism was more understandable, if not justified. Well, it's good to know that you're a loving idiot in general and just only ever talk about Islam.
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
It's a shame how the Iran Nuclear Deal didn't actually involve giving Iran nukes like the Republican agitprop says, because they're going to need them given the oncoming fascist Europe.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 19:18
|
|
Wowzers, gang. Looks like a five-alarm line-by-line. Guess it's time to fight fire with fire. Sinestro posted:Apparently the fact that populations are declining in Europe while there is large amounts of immigration and that those immigrant populations have higher birth rates than the native population is offensive wrongthink now? Unfortunately, "Sinestro", God, should she exist, wouldn't care about your little tiff, so there is absolutely no reason to engage in hopping back and forth between facts and interpretations as necessary unless it gets you horny. And homegrown is not allowed on this website. quote:People in this thread sure love reading lots of extra stuff into posts, it's fun! I was unaware that talking about Islam in the thread "Islam, ISIS, and You: Where are all these so-called "moderate" Muslims?" meant that it was being implied that it was the only example of such a thing. Similarly, "Sinestro", you have a very strange, warped understanding of communication and language, wherein context is a fake idea, possibly from the bad social media website. quote:There is a certain kind of deeply stupid pseudo-social justice that pours from that feculent sewer of a website that is at hand here, where the number of Oppression Points is more important than actual actions. I mean sure, they're radical misogynists and homophobes, but they're not white christians, so you can't attack them! Actually, given the number of people arguing that liberalism is incapable of dealing with the evils of Muslims, both here and elsewhere, the "pseudo-social justice" would be in facilitating the fascists looking for Jews 2.0 to gas in camps. quote:Actually making a point or adding anything to the discussion. Turn your monitor on.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 19:34
|
|
Sinestro posted:When it's a people that are largely homophobic, transphobic, misogynist and racist, then yes, the democratic instruments of Western Europe getting controlled by them is a disaster. Well, when you know who these people are, have determined their unique intractability among people to adopting the mores of their new home country, and thus proved racism true, we can reopen Bergen-Belsen. Sinestro posted:Well, and this is a theme that shows up a lot in this thread, but it's a case where the ones who are willing to adapt to modern culture are the ones who don't actually follow all the tenets of their religion. And it's not every muslim in the world, but the ones who are coming to Europe aren't mostly the enlightened, modern, more progressive ones, they're mostly from the poorest and least developed parts of the poorest countries in the Islamic world. I like how you imply that you need money to not hate gay people, subtly.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 19:53
|
|
Sinestro posted:No, because when you actually ask European muslims now, they are opposed to the values of secularism that are fundamental to European society. It would be nice if you could post what parts of "secularism that are fundamental to European society" they oppose. Are they all theocratic woman-haters, in your mind, or is it uneasiness with laicite, or is this actually just bullshit being used to justify your fear of the Other? I guess there's also the part where people assume that Europeans are really all left-wing to center, ignoring the right wing. Sinestro posted:This sounds good, but they're, for the most part, not fleeing extremist violence against liberal moderates, they're fleeing sectarian violence between extremist groups. It would also be unconscionable if they were fleeing violence against radical liberals or left-wingers.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 20:01
|
|
Sinestro posted:It's mostly the conception of the rule of law that's the issue. Salafi groups are incredibly widespread in the Sunni parts of the middle east, and support for Sharia law is present among French muslims. "Conception of the rule of law" is not an issue of secularism, first of all. Second of all, your second sentence begins with a non-sequitur and concludes with a statement that requires clarification. Do they want Shari'a to replace secular law, coexist with secular law, or do they just want to be able to have Muslim marriages? What degree of coexistence? What is their understanding of Shari'a? Jumping immediately to "French Muslims all are rapists who want to cut people's hands off" is a sign you're a huge racist, and merely implying it just leaves your racism at ordinary size.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 20:12
|
|
Immortan posted:
This post is a good example of why "white Christian father who goes to Church once a year who said something positive about Ronald Reagan once at the dinner table during Thanksgiving" is, in fact, the "real enemy" of secular values. Because there is a great heap of people who are eternally suspicious of Der Ewige Muslim, and this heap of people excuses "white Christian fathers who go to Church once a year who say something positive about Ronald Reagan once at the dinner table during Thanksgiving" out of hand.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 22:36
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Don't dishonestly pretend ignorance of the numerous incidents of religious extremism among migrants (the attempting lynching of a man who tore a Koran, the sudden mass-drowning of most of a boat's non-Muslim passengers by the Muslims, etc). No, it doesn't represent the majority, nor is it a good enough justification to refuse asylum to certain nationalities. But denying that it even exists just causes the average European to be pushed towards the far-right when one of these incidents does happen (and they will continue to, frequently, for years to come). I wish that God would strike down everyone who argues for hatred with reference to justice.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:02
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Edit: But seriously though - Sedan Chair, Effectronica, Rigged Death Trap? What are your thoughts on ex-muslims? Should there be a certain amount of leniency granted to those who intimidate, threaten and/or murder them, on account of the fact that they are betraying their race by leaving the religion with which it is, according to you, synonymous? Is that an accurate representation of your views? Even if it isn't , it's closer to the truth than responding to any concern with the political attitudes of Muslim immigrants with "HITLER HITLER HITLERRRRR" That is not an accurate representation of my views, and I feel that people who come out with "Don't think Muslims are basically evil and atavistic? You must be in favor of legalizing murder!!" should have things which I have been told I am not allowed to discuss in this forum happen to them.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:09
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Well, at least you've moved on to wishing people dead by impersonal cosmic forces as opposed to wishing for the opportunity to personally kill them. That's a step forward. Excuse me, but I didn't say anything about people dying. That's a dishonest implication, much like people concluding that someone who believes Muslims are actively subverting society must also believe that this be stopped.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:14
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The crux of the issue is that a sizable minority of Muslims in several European countries are, in fact, in favor of murdering people for religious reasons when polled on the topic. You don't think that's relevant to the topic of whether or not Sharia law should be allowed to gain precedent and enforceability in western nations? I, personally, think that Muslims should be allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose, and allowed to produce halal food and eat it, disburse their inheritance as they please, etc.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:26
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I guess the crux of the matter is whether you think Muslims should have access to a non-religious court to appeal to in case they feel that Sharia court is treating them unfairly, and whether there should be support mechanisms in place in case Sharia or extra-judicial authorities start persecuting them for doing so. It's when things go wrong that you test what the nature is of your legal framework, not when everybody's happy. I don't think that there's anyone in this thread, and far, far fewer people outside of it than those who provide the basis for clobber statistics, who would actually suggest that Muslims be banned from using the ordinary court system. Even spectacular racists are unlikely to do so, I think. In fact, intimating that there's somebody who believes that seems vaguely insulting.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:35
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:I wasn't seriously suggesting those were the views those three posters hold, but using it as a mirror image to the hyperbole that gets directed at anybody who doesn't toe the line of cultural relativism. That's actually not what cultural relativism means. If you really opposed cultural relativism, you'd hold that it wasn't Islam that was bad, but Muslims just being inherently evil.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:04
|
|
rudatron posted:Why should there be sharia courts? Defend migrants from racists, but there is no reason for a state to ever secede authority like that. They want to enforce specific marriage contracts or whatever, they can do that under the existing legal system. Granting powers to community leaders on account of ethnicity or religious identity is just a way to entrench the power structures already existing in those identities, which will be used to punish apostates/opponents/outsiders within that community. You don't need to have a specifically shari'a court to oversee a marriage in Islam, but marriage is part of shari'a and allowing Muslims to marry according to shari'a thus allows shari'a legitimacy, just like allowing for halal food to be prepared or for Muslims to define their inheritance according to fiqh. In order to reject shari'a as legitimate, you cannot allow Muslims to marry, eat, or inherit as they please.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:12
|
|
Sethex posted:Honestly at this point I don't think you can break their ideology, to them religion isn't just a set of fictional ideas that contribute to a cultural identity, it is untouchable, unless you're criticizing christians. Okay, so religion is inherently fictional. I guess that means that it's actually right to kill people willy-nilly, because religions consider that immoral and religious ideas are fictional ones.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:16
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Without religious morality, where do we get morals from If you could stop arguing from inferences instead of what people actually say, or failing that step on a landmine, that would be just great. The point here is that if religious ideas are inherently fictional, as mentally-handicapped racist #2 said, then even if the idea isn't related to the supernatural, it's still fictional, even if nonreligious philosophy uses it!
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:21
|
|
GyroNinja posted:someone told me that harry potter was fiction, guess that means they don't think london exists I hope that your feeble brain does not impair you too much in your daily life.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:25
|
|
Immortan posted:Reminder that this guy made a thread titled "Why evolution implies evidence for the supernatural". Ad hominem arguments are a sign of cowardice on multiple levels. I could just make a fist and you'd piss your pants, I bet.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:30
|
|
Sethex posted:That is totally disregarding the origin of the ethical position. Religious ethics are a kind of philosophical ethics. In your desire to annihilate all religions and probably the religious too (barring white Christians, I guess), you've managed to become incredibly stupid, ignorant, and hateful.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 01:35
|
|
Sethex posted:Here is the thing, religious ethics are dumb, reason being is they typically rely on God demands X, where as secular ethics are based on modern norms/values, utility, and intellectual exploration among other complex grownup things. 1. Utilitarianism is not the last word in ethics. 2. Most religious ethics are not based on divine demands in any real sense. Even in Christianity, this is not really the case theologically, although this is not understood by the majority of lay Christians. Many religious ethics do use the supernatural in their arguments, but primarily as a standard to set against. 3. Ignoring these two problems, this is still a poorly formulated argument, because it doesn't say anything about the actions in question. For example, supposing some sort of New Age bullshit where the only command is "first, do no harm", we have to ask ourselves what exactly happens when you have "some fundies to take that action to an extreme" and how that would be bad. This argument basically falls apart of its own volition. Smudgie Buggler posted:Why are you so abusive to everybody all the time? It really sticks out in every thread just how willing you are to get personal and nasty at the drop of a hat. Personally, I consider it demeaning to people who have been abused to compare saying "You're dumb" to what they have gone through. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 03:15
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:It would be demeaning if anybody was comparing say, child molestation to your personal tirades against posters you disagree with. But since nobody is doing that and we're all smart enough to recognise 'abuse' as a broad category that covers both the worst offences against human dignity as well as your petty outbursts of irrational spite in much the same way as 'battery' covers beating someone bloody and unconscious as well as flicking their forehead with an index finger, why don't you stop being so disingenuous and grow up? You seem to have a slight obsession with child molestation, given that you brought it up immediately, but I guess you're right, and you're being abusive to me, right now, and you should probably stop, from a moral perspective, which you may or may not have. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 03:30
|
|
khwarezm posted:Fishmech is nintendo kid. It's an attempt at a slur that backfired.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 03:48
|
|
I did not intend to imply the poster Smudgie Buggler was a pedophile or child molester, in my earlier post.rudatron posted:Couldn't give two shits about halal or fiqh, but the only way sharia is going to work is if it's a kind of personal morality, among the millions that already exist. That means removing it from its community context. Fiqh is shari'a jurisprudence. I fooled you, I fooled you, etc. Furthermore, a substantial part of shari'a isn't about morality, because it's a legal code, and these are the parts Muslims use most often. You really have a poor understanding of this issue, which makes your pronouncements seem to be "Islam must be destroyed", rather than whatever you intended.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 10:38
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Okay, then. Let's look at the first example: marriage. What does "allowed to get married in the fashion that they choose" mean exactly? Please read further in the thread before jerking your knee. Furthermore, you forgot about Twelver fixed-term marriages, which are not possible under French law, yet are not a Trojan Horse for the vile Mohammedan to implement his single desire (there being no Muslim women, only victims) to rape children. It's such a shame that while accusations against individuals are verboten, accusations against a large number of people are innocuous.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 11:56
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You said explicitly that I have an obsession with child molestation. Yes. I meant to imply that you were a creep for jumping to that as your first example, not to imply that you actually molested children, because I am morally superior to that turd Cat Mattress.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 16:55
|
|
rudatron posted:Ah, clever, well played. But you're still wrong. All legal codes are expressions of social morality, that you may not believe them doesn't make them not a moral system. If they think that's right for them, and want to act in that way personally, then sure, but I draw the line at courts, even if they're religiously-motivated arbitration tribunals. I've laid out my reasons why, take them up or don't. Legitimizing shari'a civil arbitration would actually be better under your standards, however, because it would integrate it into existing courts rather than it existing as a truly parallel legal system. Or you could establish a police state just to ensure that anyone who uses semi-legal shari'a arbitration is caught and punished, or one just aimed at Muslims. Or you could let it continue to exist in a grey area and prosecute attempts to enforce judgments illegally.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 16:59
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I argue that they don't need sharia courts because the existing legal system is perfectly satisfactory to them; you are the one who claim they need to have a parallel legal system so as to bypass existing laws. I'm referring to your snide insinuations that Muslims who support shari'a are all pedophiles, you worm. The fact that you have piled semiliteracy atop bigotry is sad but not surprising.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
The Catholic Church maintains a body of law, which includes penalties like excommunication. The state should not be involved in making those decisions, because that would compromise separation of church and state. But preventing this parallel legal system from operating would require the use of force and the threat of violence at an absolute minimum, along with an intrusive police state. Nevertheless, this should not allow the Church to evade secular penalties for criminal actions. Shari'a is functionally identical. If two people want to use shari'a arbitration to settle a dispute in lieu of small claims court, where's the problem? There are multiple reasons why someone would want to do this without being a fifth-columnist pederast. And you can always prosecute if need be.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 21:49
|
|
Sethex posted:Men am women are treated differently under Sharia law and in a much more discriminating way than secular law. Okay. Can you address the exact scenario instead of squealing about how we need a strong Führer to deal with the Dolchstoss of multiculturalism and eliminate the Bolshevist-capitalist complex of international Islamry? That way, we can see you come around to saying that you'd totally blow a nun's head off rather than allow the Catholic Church to have ecclesiastical laws of its own.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 22:16
|
|
Miltank posted:
Agreed, let's ban high-heeled shoes, makeup, decolletage...
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 23:45
|
|
Miltank posted:Lol ok sounds good bro What differentiates high heels from a niqab, in terms of dehumanization? Are we to take it that sexual objectification is better than non-sexual objectification? That seems rather, um, sexist.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 23:50
|
|
Miltank posted:Hijab is not burka or nikab. You can make the argument that high heels are the same thing as as a mask that completely covers the face, but I disagree- its almost completely different. Both of them are, in a historical context, about male control over women. Both of them are also targets of reclamation by feminism. Both of them involve policing sexuality, and reclamation has involved reclaiming the sexual element and making it anew.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 23:58
|
|
Miltank posted:Even the idea that they keep women from being ogled is completely rooted in their original patriarchal purpose. The ideas that underlie heels being empowering are also rooted in their original patriarchal purpose.
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 00:19
|
|
Sethex posted:Turkey, a Muslim country that for a time sought gender equality did the same thing decades ago in their universities, an is significantly better in the gender equality department today, likely in part because of mustafa's reforms, do you actually think if the burka were banned it would lead to women being kept inside forever? Why would someone who wears strict hijab (up to the point of the niqab or burqa) because they consider it part of their faith engage with a society that tells them they can either have their faith or engage with the broader society?
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 21:02 |
|
Sethex posted:So is your line of reasoning here that the burka doesn't result in the structural isolation of an individual? Because to me that sounds like you're being intellectually dishonest or thick. Do I become socially isolated when I put on a burqa?
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 02:43
|
|