This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Strawman Explanation
So it is basically like quoting someone out of context, and then responding to that with an argument against a quote they never actually made?
Yeah. It can happen to any varying degree. Just change your opponent's argument, and argue against what you changed it to. HSR was the worst at this. I've never seen anything like it. It was infuriating. Our debates were all 2 posts long. He would change my points and misquote me every single time he said anything. But, he is banished to Torhead. It's like the pergatory of wowhead.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Actually MyTie, when we were in a thread about Palestine a few months back, I think I had asked you about how much exposure you'd had to Muslim people, and if you'd ever read the Quran, and I was making a statement based on your responses as I remembered them. If I misremembered, I apologize, but I wasn't attempting to guess.
It wasn't an attack either- it was trying to show you that a new perspective. You seem to hate the uninformed generalizations that people make when connecting your religion to hot words like crusades and the inquisition. You see them as trying to prove a theory about you, and about your beliefs, based on a few incidents that, if they had any real knowledge of, they'd probably not connect to what you believe. What I was attempting to put into perspective, is that is almost the exact position that the average Muslim in many countries is in when people who don't have a lot of background in their religion start judging their beliefs, and them as people, based on the most public and violent incidents that are connected to the idea of Islam. It's the same argument that you have against atheists who slam Christianity about what it "says" but who have never opened the bible, but in reverse.
I was attempting to put it in a new light.
Post by
MyTie
Actually MyTie, when we were in a thread about Palestine a few months back, I think I had asked you about how much exposure you'd had to Muslim people, and if you'd ever read the Quran, and I was making a statement based on your responses as I remembered them. If I misremembered, I apologize, but I wasn't attempting to guess.
Ah. Then your memory doesn't serve you well. I have read the Quran, but admittedly, not the "additional texts", such as the Hadith. As I understand, the Quran is not stand alone in the Islamic religion. Heck, the Islamic religion isn't even... well.. there isn't really a single core texts to go back to that everyone accepts, like the Bible. Thus, the differences between sects, such as Sunni and Shia. I'm not the most knowledgeable person about Islam, but I'm not ignorant either. In any case, you should make it a point to never argue against the person. If someone who knows nothing about a topic makes a statement about the topic, your best bet is to examine the statement regardless of the source. It comes across as patronizing when you do not.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Then I apologize if I was mistaken. See my edit above for my intent in drawing the comparison.
Post by
MyTie
It wasn't an attack either- it was trying to show you that a new perspective. You seem to hate the uninformed generalizations that people make when connecting your religion to hot words like crusades and the inquisition. You see them as trying to prove a theory about you, and about your beliefs, based on a few incidents that, if they had any real knowledge of, they'd probably not connect to what you believe. What I was attempting to put into perspective, is that is almost the exact position that the average Muslim in many countries is in when people who don't have a lot of background in their religion start judging their beliefs, and them as people, based on the most public and violent incidents that are connected to the idea of Islam. It's the same argument that you have against atheists who slam Christianity about what it "says" but who have never opened the bible, but in reverse.
I was attempting to put it in a new light.
Well, then I just have to say I disagree. I have studied, and I have read the Quran. The more fundamental the Muslim, the more prone to violence. In order to react violently, a Christian has to abandon the fundamentals of Christianity. Violence and fundamental Islam
can
co exist. People dressing up as knights and going on a crusade has nothing to do with Christianity. However, read Surah 8:72-73 and Surah 2:190-193.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
@Enigma- He's a mod over on Torhead now.
Post by
gamerunknown
As for reading the Qur'an, that's a troublesome point because just about every Muslim I've ever argued with has told me that the various English translations I've read don't count because it looses all meaning outside of Arabic.
Sounds like
taqqiya
. One just needs to look at how it is practised and preached in countries where there are Muslim majorities, including interpretation of sharia. Admittedly there are no prescribed punishments for apostasy or homosexuality (while executions occur for these in theocratic Muslim countries), but the Quran prescribes lashing for adultery (revoking Jesus' command to not throw the first stone).
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@Enigma- He's a mod over on Torhead now.
Ah Ok. I vaguely remember reading something about him being banned here, but wasn't really sure what happened.
With regard to the Muslim/Islam/Qur'an conversation. From an Australian point of view, I, as an individual, don't see Muslims as having a violent culture, and I don't beleive the majority of Australian individuals would either.
But it's strange how the 'pack' mentality takes over when there is a Development Application for a Mosque. People seem to band together to protest about the inappropriateness of the location, the dangers from increased traffic flow, lack of parking, and incovenience of the increased noise, etc.
I beleive what they are really thinking is "I don't want those terrorists preaching near my kids", but they don't have the testicular fortitude to actually come out and say it, so they hide behind traffic and noise complaints, and the great line "We are happy for them to have a place of worship, provided it is in an appropriate location", which roughly translates to "We don't want them here, put them in the middle of the bush/desert/out of sight".
I wonder if other countries have this same problems?
The only time I've ever seen where people protested the creation of a Muslim mosque was within a block (if memory serves) of where Muslims crashed airplanes into people and killed them. While I don't think all Muslims are violent, I understand their trepidation.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I think it's a bad reputation fuelled by the media to be honest.
But I guess bad news sells more papers than good news does.
Is that why the media reported on 9/11? It sold better?
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I think it's a bad reputation fuelled by the media to be honest.
But I guess bad news sells more papers than good news does.
Is that why the media reported on 9/11? It sold better?
Do you think the bad reputation is justified then?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Agree with your analysis. Full employment is essentially a Communistic idea: the industrial reserve army is a feature of Capitalism. I think Friedman termed it "necessary unemployment". I think at the moment one is permitted to volunteer in order to receive the unemployment benefits assuming one is in hale health, which I think is a better model (at least, quite a few people at the place I volunteered were sent there from the job agency).
Post by
Squishalot
I don't agree with it being for private enterprise. I would much rather those doctors, forensic scientists and others to be participating in urban renewal projects, picking up litter from conservation areas, and weeding in council parks - i.e. government-created roles.
It's not about the idea that it's going to help them find a job. It's about disincentivising people to simply sit on the unemployment benefit. If 10 hours a week is somehow going to damage your chances of finding a job because it takes time away from preparing CVs and trawling through job ads, then you're seriously screwed up, because there aren't that many *new* job positions posted each week, and you should've applied for the old ones in the first 3 months.
And I don't know how you're working it out to be 2 quid an hour. 240 hours over 24 weeks (6 months, between 3 and 9 months) is 10 hours a week, or £5.35, which is pretty close to the minimum wage on the numbers that you've provided.
(In case it wasn't obvious enough, I'm a big fan of 'work-for-dole' systems, on the proviso that the work is government-created.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
gamerunknown
And I don't know how you're working it out to be 2 quid an hour.
I think he was going by a 40 hour week on unemployment benefits.
Also, semi-productive employment in the style of Roosevelt's alphabet agencies or volunteering is something I'd advocate, but they're an anathema to the Chicago/Austrian school of economics.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.