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
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Surely "normal" is what a significant group of people do at a certain point in time, no? Weren't you trying to convince us only a few posts ago that extremist Islamics are a common practice in Muslim countries?
Furthermore, with hindsight one can see a hell of a lot more about the NSDAP, the KKK, etc. When you're actually in that situation, it's not quite as clear cut. Campaigns don't always have to focus on hate within extremist groups, which I thought you would know. That just wouldn't be wise marketing. Again, I'm not disagreeing that it's wrong to vote for those groups, but I'm trying to give you some perspective to explain why some may flock to those parties - particularly the uneducated who may or may not understand the true nature of those groups. I find it amusing that you ask us to provide perspective on things, and then automatically shoot down everything written because it doesn't adhere to your personal moral code. I've not asked to understand why people voted for Islamic extremists. They did, and that was very wrong of them. Saying "they didn't know better" is your decision. I'd say that they knew exactly what they were voting for, and I'd be right. I've actually been asking you all to NOT explain it away, or hide it under a lampshade of legitimacy. I don't want to hear that. It's incorrect, both factually and morally. And I'm done.Don't wanna talk about beer before you go? I found an old can of Bud light. Anyone else on board with this observance of health?
Post by
MyTie
@ElhonnaDS - I said "large portions of the Muslim population", and I don't believe I said a majority. So, you're now saying you agree with me?
@Boron - If Santorum blamed the Jews for all my problems, like Hitler did, then I wouldn't vote for him. If Santorum had a history of forcing people to go to Church, then I wouldn't vote for him. I agree that you can't tell exactly what an elected offical WILL do, but you can see what they have done. In the case of Haman and the Muslim Brotherhood, that includes killing a lot of people.
Oh, and the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 had
nothing to do with the US
. But way to blame the US. That must be a habit for you.
Post by
gamerunknown
Yay, beer. I prefer cider though and I'm not going to drink until after Easter. I do plan on heading down to Brighton to see a few friends I haven't seen for months during Easter break though.
Anyway, the whole religion debate got started by you.
How would an article telling Muslims to quit Islam be viewed?
I agree that the major concern here is that people are dying, but that wasn't your initial position. Your major concern at first was that Islam was getting a free ride from liberals while they could be critical as they liked of Christianity (in other words, you equivocated between attacking one religion and attacking another
first
)*. Personally I think there are two factors: both the liberal consensus (attacking Islam would betray mainstream values, and also the Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn't hold that the president has initiated a war on America or hold that
he was born outside of the country
) and the real threat of violence that entails attacks on Islam. Referred mainly to the latter point with my second post and I wasn't equivocating between Christianity as practiced in the US and Islam as practiced by judges that rule rape victims must marry their rapists.
You consider the democratically elected governments of other countries terrorist groups, Palestinian citizens probably consider a country that provides military aid, including weapons of mass destruction, to a country that has perpetrated war crimes against it to be a terrorist state. That's why I brought up aggression on behalf of the US. I linked to Chomsky's argument merely because it's fairly comprehensive. His support for anyone else is independent of the fact that the American public claims to be broadly Christian and votes for leaders that initiate or fund wars of aggression (which I used to demonstrate that democratically electing violent leaders don't prove the pathology of the citizens, or we'd have to tar all Venezuelans with that brush, nor does having an explicitly pacifistic text preclude violence any more than having a military prophet entails it - Saudi Arabia hasn't gone to war in almost 80 years).
You've said yourself,
in this thread
, that violence is not a Christian principle and that you wouldn't want to be associated with it. But presumably at some point you've voted for leaders or at least paid taxes that go to purchasing weapons that have killed civilians. I don't think that makes you a violent person any more than I think that a person that votes for the Muslim Brotherhood (scum that they are) does so because he wants to bring about a caliphate.
Edit: * I think your point would have been much better received if for example you said: it's strange how the New York Times won't advertise criticism of Islam, though they will of Catholicism, then point to the casualties of fundamentalist Islam (like the girl who committed suicide after being forced to marry her rapist).
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
You've said yourself,
in this thread
, that violence is not a Christian principle and that you wouldn't want to be associated with it. But presumably at some point you've voted for leaders or at least paid taxes that go to purchasing weapons that have killed civilians. I don't think that makes you a violent person any more than I think that a person that votes for the Muslim Brotherhood (scum that they are) does so because he wants to bring about a caliphate.
Yeah. Unfortunately, I cannot choose every action of my government. This is quite a bit different than voting for someone who has professed a desire for, and history of, outright violence, and not just against foreign powers. The Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and other terrorist groups harm their own populations regularly.
This conversation started by looking at the double standard placed on Christianity and Islam. One is socially acceptible to question, and the other is not. It matured to what it is now. My refusal to look at Islamic actions under a dim light, and held up for perspective. What I think I am trying to communicate, and is failing to be understood is this:
I think Islamic terrorism is wrong, and rampant, and supported by a large portion of the population of many Islamic regions. Further, attempts to hold Islamic violence up next to Christian violence, as some sort of "tit for tat" comparison doesn't work.
What purpose does it serve? Holding up actions of violent people who profess Islam next to violent people who profess Christianity? The don't compare well, and the latter is irrelevant to the former. It reeks of an attempt to diminish the significance of the former, which gets my blood rolling. Anytime, ya know, people are being murdered and someone shrugs it off by pointing to a Florida book burner, then it isn't getting a free pass from me.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
The line that got my goat, was the one where you said "The majority of our people are better than the majority of their people." The numbers I used were to try and put into perspective that, even in these countries, those in power don't necessarily reflect the majority opinion, and also that the majority opinion on many of these groups in their home countries comes from censored info and propaganda that makes them look much better than they are.
I have never disagreed that terrorists need to be dealt with. It just seems that, sometimes, the line between "the terrorists" and "the Muslims" gets blurred when people are discussing the issue, and I attempt to keep the lines as distinct as possible. Not because the terrorists are right, but because it helps to have as complete and specific an understanding as possible of what we are fighting, and what we're not. We're not fighting a religion- we're fighting groups of extremists who have used a combination of religious sympathies of normal people, terror tactics and propaganda to gain a foothold in several countries. If we misjudge their tactics, and what their motivations are, it will be harder to stop them. If we resort to terror tactics against civilian populations, we're no better than they are, and we'll do more to strengthen their numbers than deter them. If we forget that the majority of people who are Muslim around the world- in the US, in Europe, in wealthier Muslim countries- are most likely just as disgusted with the idea of 9 year-olds being raped, rape victims being murdered, and buildings full of innocent people being blown up, then we're losing allies and losing perspective. And, if we don't try and understand the root causes of terrorism as a phenomenon (not just the terrorism in this age, but the repeated cycle of it in various cultures, countries and situations), we won't be able to head off damage and casualties in the future.
And, if you'll noticed, I commented on both articles you linked about people discriminating about Christianity. I don't have any preferential treatment for one religion over another.
Post by
gamerunknown
Further, attempts to hold Islamic violence up next to Christian violence, as some sort of "tit for tat" comparison don't work.
Yes, I agree, it's the fallacy of equivocation/two wrongs. I also agree that a reasonable interpretation of the Gospels will preclude violence whereas a reasonable interpretation of the Quran may even encourage it. However, I don't think that that's the motivation for violence in the Arabic world, nor do I think that professing Christianity rather than actually practicing it has helped prevent much violence in America.
I can only hope that their voting for the fundamentalist groups is actually out of nationalism and not aggression and once it becomes clear that they're not under any sort of external military threat, that they'll vote in more moderate leaders. I can think of two alternatives: external intervention (as in Chilé, Greece, Nicaragua), which has been shown to be ineffective. The other is attempting to convince the country to vote for more secular, liberal parties, which may be effective.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
The line that got my goat, was the one where you said "The majority of our people are better than the majority of their people." The numbers I used were to try and put into perspective that, even in these countries, those in power don't necessarily reflect the majority opinion, and also that the majority opinion on many of these groups in their home countries comes from censored info and propaganda that makes them look much better than they are.
This could have been worded better. My apologies. I don't know the daily life of your Egyptian, or Iranian. I just know a bunch of them want me dead, because I don't believe the Prophet Mohammad speaks for Allah.
It is my firm belief we shouldn't be handling the issue with apologetic kid gloves.
Post by
MyTie
It is more like that Islam is getting so much misunderstandings, people are trying to avoid creating new conflict. But, Christianity was always there and people got used to it. It is like new friend you are trying to make and old friend. If you are trying to make a new friend, you are nice to them and polite, but with old friends you can be like "You son of .....", and he won't be offended because he knows you don't mean it.What is this?An this is what we are trying to prove is wrong (at least me)
It's not even up for question. Even ElhonnaDS, who disagrees with me on a lot of this issue, agrees with this point.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Point is that, in order to be stopped being threatened by Islamist fundamental terrorists, US must present itself as friend of Islam, than ordinary people will stop perceiving them as threat and won't support people with their own agendas who pretend to protect Islamic values.
I'm sure this won't work. Obama spent a long time apologizing the Islamic world. Hasn't worked yet.
Besides, I refuse to place blame on anyone but the aggressor.
As far as your "familiarity" comment, I disagree. Humans tend to approve of what they know, and fear what they don't know.
Does she? From what I gathered she tries to show you that it is not large percent of people who voted in Egypt. 12% is not that big of a number.
Her point was that it is disturbing, but not a majority. We agree.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Four years is not long enough. The wounds are too deep to be fixed with one president. This needs to be decades long policy before it brings any result.This isn't JUST a misconception about western intentions, but a religious belief held by many many Muslims that anyone who isn't Islamic must bleed and die. I can't tell, but it looks as if you are placing blame for Islamic violence in Western laps. I contend that their actions are theirs alone, and wholly unacceptable. Besides wars did not work out, Obama is looking for new ways of dealing with problem. This oddly reminds me of Cold War, though former allies (USA and Soviet Union against Nazi, USA and some Islamic states against USSR) are now against each other. What happened during Bush rule is similar to
McCarthyism
, and what Obama tries to bring is
Detente
.
As for "familiarity", you said what I was trying to say (in my understanding of it). It is OK to make fun of Christianity because people know about it and do not do that to Islam, because they don't know what is going to happen. You get an F for your analogies class today.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
I would like to see your credentials to judge on this one.
Asking MyTie for analogies credentials is like sticking your *!@# in a blender. Believe me, I learned from the master.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I would like to see your credentials to judge on this one.
Asking MyTie for analogies credentials is like sticking your *!@# in a blender. Believe me, I learned from the master.
Who gave you lessons about sticking your *!@# in a blender?
Post by
Adamsm
Kind of useless lessons....could only do it once lol.
Post by
Monday
Kind of useless lessons....could only do it once lol.
Only if it was turned on.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.