Mohammedans (EB could be a prejudiced bigot, but at least he's not Dot)

bloop bloop blah
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39493
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 398 times

Post #2301 by Craig » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:03 pm

dempsey_k wrote:You need to go to the suburbs, check out a Buffalo Wild Wings on a Thursday, slap the waitresses ass and discuss Jesus and gays and hunting with other bros, hats on backwards, to truly understand the threat that sharia poses.


Actually, other than the suburbs part that doesn't sound like a bad time. I'd love to go hunting some time and I'm assuming the waitresses has a nice ass.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2302 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:11 pm

The other thing worth noting with the craziness in Europe at the end of the 19th c. is that a lot of the angst and struggle stemmed from the "destruction" of a prior way of life. The pressures of industrialization, urbanization, etc. eroding traditional labor and social structures. As far as grievances go, not so different from what you see emanating from the anti-West radicals today. The response at the time for anarcho-socialists was to attack the perceived enemy, which they viewed as the bourgeoisie as the representatives of encroaching industrial capitalism.

The political success of that movement owed more to the moderates that engaged directly in the political system (which comes down to this day in Europe, Dot). The combination of political reform and time softened the harsh edges of that process and laid the groundwork for the overall moderation of the political movement throughout much of Europe.

But, obviously, the point is not that violence should be ignored, Dot ... just that it needs to be kept within perspective.
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #2303 by Sturminator » Wed Jan 28, 2015 1:27 pm

The funny thing here is that there is a argument to be made that Islam contains a fundamentally different and perhaps more dangerous attitude to war (and politics?) than other religions. In order to make that argument, however, eb would have to actually read the Qur'an and engage with Islamic history in a more than superficial way, which is pretty clearly not going to happen.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2304 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:11 pm

embracedbias wrote:I like "narrowly defined" perspectives because they allow us to say something specific.


Yeah, narrowly defined perspectives are great for skewing data to arrive at "specific" interpretations that can support the weight of a flea, but fall apart when removed from their narrow confines.

Just because I'm concerned with the aggregate doesn't mean that I'm not aware of variability. I just think we can still say something meaningful and specific about the aggregate despite the variability.

I'm not sure about the "mother load of bad ideas". Signing David Clarkson was a pretty bad idea, too. Not overly interested in making a claim that require simultaneously comparing every possible idea and defining "bad" in an uncontroversial way. That's the type of thing that I avoid.

As for quarantine, etc. Don't be absurd. I don't think anyone but right wing nutters are saying anything close to that. I only advocate for the freedom to question all aspects of any religion.


How is it absurd, eb. You are arguing that there is a dangerous ideology in our midst ... why would we allow that to live next door to us? Should we at least put surveillance on Muslims to make sure that they don't start making bombs?

There's a difference between questioning, and making claims. Your right to question is not under duress, your claims are.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2305 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:15 pm

embracedbias wrote:So long as the perspective excludes the possibility that religion has anything to do with anything. Eh?


Not at all. Just provide real, meaningful evidence ... and have the ability to address counter arguments and counter examples. You've made a positive argument ... a plausible positive argument. Can you defend that argument? Does the thesis hold up? Have you even begun to address the necessary material to make that argument?

Religion has a great deal to do with violence, eb. I can all but assure you that I'm well more aware of that than you. There is an important difference, however, between religion being part of the whole, and religion being causative.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2306 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:16 pm

embracedbias wrote:Sounds like fun. If Jester would like to probe the commonalities between Islamic terrorism and (for example) IRA terrorism, good on him. I just hope he discusses the differences, too. Sounds like an interesting discussion.

I'm still confused about how this bears on the current difference between disenfranchised groups in terms of terrorism.


... what? How are the activities of the IRA throughout pretty much the entirety of the 20th c. (not to mention the long Irish history prior to then) not an example of disenfranchised groups resorting to terror. That a relatively stable peace has been established means that it is no longer relevant to discussions of terrorist activities?
User avatar
Sturminator
Registered Broad
Posts: 2349
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:55 am
Received rep: 8 times

Post #2307 by Sturminator » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:21 pm

embracedbias wrote:What would be the best case scenario there? I make a theological argument about the Islamic doctrine that supports violence, oppression, etc.... and the next guy says "yah, but that's not how I interpret it". Why go through that trouble when the Islamists themselves are explicitly claiming that they are motivated by their religion?


Abortion clinic bombers explicitly claim religious motivation, as well. Self-identification is too low a bar here.

You need to make an argument that something in the foundational principles of Islam offers basically normal people a justification for violence that is not present in other religions. It's not an easy argument to make, but it's the only one that isn't hopelessly complicated by vast differences in living conditions among the practitioners of various religions in the present day.
If a man were permitted to make all the ballads, he need not care who should make the laws of a nation.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2308 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:22 pm

embracedbias wrote:What would be the best case scenario there? I make a theological argument about the Islamic doctrine that supports violence, oppression, etc.... and the next guy says "yah, but that's not how I interpret it". Why go through that trouble when the Islamists themselves are explicitly claiming that they are motivated by their religion?


So, I guess the Catcher in the Rye is an assassination trigger, then?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2309 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:04 pm

embracedbias wrote:No more than you mentioning Israel dresses up antisemitism. (which I don't think it does, but you see my point)


Wait what? You think that when I mention jewish violence in Israel I'm arguing against jews?

No no my friend. I use it as an example of why it's not the jewish part that is the problem but it's other issues. Just like I say it's not the muslim part that's the problem but other issues.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2310 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:08 pm

Sturminator wrote:Abortion clinic bombers explicitly claim religious motivation, as well. Self-identification is too low a bar here.

You need to make an argument that something in the foundational principles of Islam offers basically normal people a justification for violence that is not present in other religions. It's not an easy argument to make, but it's the only one that isn't hopelessly complicated by vast differences in living conditions among the practitioners of various religions in the present day.


I would make the argument that Islam's structures and specifically its permeability and lack of hierarchical organisation makes it substantially more maleable to promote violence (or tolerance) depending on the political-socio-economic-educational pool it's swimming in.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2311 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:17 pm

Talk about the far-rights wet dream.
User avatar
Twitter bArt
Registered Broad
Posts: 86600
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:26 pm
Has given rep: 268 times
Received rep: 425 times

Post #2312 by Twitter bArt » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:26 pm

#BellLetsTalk
:mkbét::lr: :lr:

OOOH yeah life goes on, long after the thrill of Vinny is gone

It's too bad all the people that could really run the Habs are busy doing talk radio, writing blogs or posting on message boards.

Now, Lajoie is an imbecile, a cretin and a plagiarist, who to use author Dany Laferrière's deliciously withering expression, "lives beyond his intellectual means."

...as serious as a poutine shortage in Chicoutimi during a curling bonspiel...

Haddock wrote:I wouldn't know anything about that. I gave my soul up when I swore allegiance to the goddamn queen.


:lr: :lr: :lr:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57577
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1735 times
Received rep: 1167 times

Post #2313 by Dog » Wed Jan 28, 2015 4:45 pm

jester wrote:Talk about the far-rights wet dream.


Shameless self-promoters?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2314 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 7:05 pm

Wait. I just realised your name is "Embrace the bias".

Ignore everything I've said in this thread.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2315 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:08 pm

embracedbias wrote:Saying that religion plays a role in the bad behavior (violent and otherwise) of Muslims does not mean that every Muslim will engage in bad behavior. We shouldn't even quarantine Westboro Baptist Church members or KKK members. It's absurd.


Big difference between terrorists, and folks that are assholes at funerals, no? The Muslims are going to kill you, the Westboro Baptist Church is going to make fun of you at your funeral for dying because of the gays.

embracedbias wrote:THE CURRENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISENFRANCHISED GROUPS IN TERMS OF OVERALL VIOLENCE

always a treat jester. Always a treat


YES, LETS IGNORE DATA POINTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T SETTLE INTO AN ARTIFICIALLY CREATED, NARROW PERIODIZATION THAT BEST SERVES OUR DESIRE TO PRESENT BIGOTED HALF-TRUTHS. HUZZAH! VERY LOUD NOISES.

But, on a more serious note, EB. What disenfranchised groups would you like to talk about that do not resort to terrorist violence? Do you have examples that you would like to discuss? Where are these pacific disenfranchised groups that provide a counter example to the violent example of Islamists? Political prisoners in China getting their organs cultivated by the state?

Perhaps more pointedly, do you have a better reasoning for "current difference between disenfranchised groups" other than you don't actually know about this stuff, and don't want to be bothered with anything that complicates your precious, narrowly defined, orientalist worldview?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2316 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:09 pm

embracedbias wrote:THE CURRENT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISENFRANCHISED GROUPS IN TERMS OF OVERALL VIOLENCE

always a treat jester. Always a treat


EB, history (yes that's important) tells us that Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. are all guilty of being more or less violent over the years.

Ergo, knowing what "now" is occurring versus what "then" was occurring proves that the religious affiliation has little to do with the violence of their behaviour.

Even if we were to admit that Muslims are now more violent than Christians (disputed but for the sake of argument) all that does is actually disprove your point.

It's exactly in line with the argument that Muslims (or Jews or Christians) in different countries have wildly different views on violence.

Muslims (Jews, Christians) in different time periods also have wildly different views on violence, etc.

So both geographically or historically, Islam (or Judaism or Christianity) has little to do with the things your looking at.

Those two elements of proof (the history of the world and the variety in current Islam) are so overwhelmingly convincing that it boggles my mind how you continue to argue the contrary point. A point that goes against all observed evidence from that past 1500 years or evidence on current Islamic views.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2317 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:15 pm

AD wrote:EB, history (yes that's important) tells us that Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. are all guilty of being more or less violent over the years.

Ergo, knowing what "now" is occurring versus what "then" was occurring proves that the religious affiliation has little to do with the violence if their behaviour.

Even if we were to admit that Muslims are now more violent than Christians (disputed but for the sake of argument) that does is actually disprove your point.

It's exactly in line with the argument that Muslims (or Jews or Christians) in different countries have wildly different views on violence.

Muslims in differ


In empirical terms ... it smooths out the danger of small sample bias.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2318 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:27 pm

embracedbias wrote:Okay sorry bad example. You get the point, though?

This post means you're cool with Westboro Baptist Church protesting funerals.


Honestly, I don't understand.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17508
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 10 times
Received rep: 102 times

Post #2319 by jester » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:34 pm

You say this as if people ignore religion, eb. No one here does. Nor has your argument been so banal. You have made a positive argument ABOUT Islam. You have not sat here, for all these many posts and just said ... these extremists [emphasis important] sure do espouse an extreme interpretation of Islam. Yeah, they do. No one fucking ignores that.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2320 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 8:34 pm

embracedbias wrote:God damnit you guys.

I haven't made any claims about Islam now vs. Christianity in the past. I haven't said anything about the inherent 'true' theological interpretation of this or that religion (i.e., something that would be consistent across time). I have argued that religions are shaped by environmental factors. And that religions are constantly changing.

When discussing the difference between current ideological groups, arguing about examples from the past cannot disprove an argument about the present because the ideologies at issue have changed over time. There were times when other ideologies were the source of more violence ( because of environmental factors). This does not mean, as you content, that ideologies have nothing to do with the violence itself. It just means that they interact with the environment. Are one factor among many. None of which should be ignored.


But that means the ideologies are nothing. And that if they are moulded be environmental factors, then they are an empty shell for those factors.

If the ideologies are causative of anything (your main contention) then they have to be something in their own irrespective of their surrounding factors.

If they are something, then they need to be analyzed over time or over space versus other ideologies over time and space. (And we've seen that this disproves your point).

If the ideologies are nothing, then what the hell are we arguing over?
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2321 by AD » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:10 pm

embracedbias wrote:There is a difference between being affected by environmental and being arbitrary.

Name something that isn't moulded by environmental factors. Hell, even the expression of genes depends on environment.


Way to dodge that. :colbert:
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 39493
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 41 times
Received rep: 398 times

Post #2322 by Craig » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:26 pm

embracedbias wrote:Okay sorry bad example. You get the point, though?

This post means you're cool with Westboro Baptist Church protesting funerals.


Uh, what? What this means is he probably doesn't think the WBC exists because Christianity causes xenophobic rednecks more than other religions, but rather they exist because of other socioeconomic factors. Being OK with terrorism would mean he's cool with WBC at funerals.
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2323 by Fruity Pebbles » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:03 pm

AD wrote:EB, history (yes that's important) tells us that Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. are all guilty of being more or less violent over the years.

Ergo, knowing what "now" is occurring versus what "then" was occurring proves that the religious affiliation has little to do with the violence of their behaviour.

Even if we were to admit that Muslims are now more violent than Christians (disputed but for the sake of argument) all that does is actually disprove your point.

It's exactly in line with the argument that Muslims (or Jews or Christians) in different countries have wildly different views on violence.

Muslims (Jews, Christians) in different time periods also have wildly different views on violence, etc.

So both geographically or historically, Islam (or Judaism or Christianity) has little to do with the things your looking at.

Those two elements of proof (the history of the world and the variety in current Islam) are so overwhelmingly convincing that it boggles my mind how you continue to argue the contrary point. A point that goes against all observed evidence from that past 1500 years or evidence on current Islamic views.


What a load of shit.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 68913
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 664 times
Received rep: 734 times

Post #2324 by AD » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:08 pm

Dot wrote:What a load of shit.


You saying that just makes me more certain of my point.

Thank you.
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 9 times

Post #2325 by Fruity Pebbles » Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:44 pm

AD wrote:You saying that just makes me more certain of my point.

Thank you.


You can think whatever you want. Your entire post was a weak dodge.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 11003
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 27 times
Received rep: 32 times

Post #2326 by RTWAP » Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:33 pm

embracedbias wrote:[YOUTUBE]t4-C0aZ3V1Q[/YOUTUBE]

It's the monster energy drink = satan woman. Making a name for herself. She'll be in office soon


Yup. Jesus Christ demands aggressive words, theft, and fury.

Love shmuv.
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 57577
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 1735 times
Received rep: 1167 times

Post #2327 by Dog » Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:34 pm

Is that eb's momma?




:mkbét:

Return to “bleetbloop”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest