IS this discussion done now? Broads discuss the root cause of evil.

..et d'autres discussions ennuyeuses
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #1 by jester » Sat Feb 07, 2015 11:44 pm

embracedbias wrote:All of them are religious. Before coming. They become more religious. As they become more extreme, they become more religious and as they become more religious they become more extreme.

Evidently, some of them are primarily motivated by religion (something that should be impossible given what you and AD have said). And likely secondarily motivated by any number of factors.

Others are primarily motivated by other factors, though they are clearly still religious. Religion is likely a secondary factor (among many).


No one has ever said it is impossible that some individuals are primarily motivated by religion, eb. Some individuals are going to be motivated by just about anything. Keep swinging at those windmills, though. Moreover, I've never said your thesis is impossible, just that you have done a shit job making it, and until you bother to do the work... you are entirely unequipped to make the argument.

In the meantime, you're the dude on the porch talking about how negros can't think smart because their brains are shaped funny.
User avatar
RTWAP
Posts: 10972
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:01 am
Location: O-town
Has given rep: 25 times
Received rep: 23 times

Post #2 by RTWAP » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:43 am

embracedbias wrote:I think it's very relevant and quite interesting.

Should only politics/economic/social be the focus of discussion? The context of this conversation is that many people (including the president) not only think p/e/s is important (something universally agreed upon and therefore not much for conversation), but actively argue that Islam has nothing to do with it. These people are often religious themselves. This despite ample evidence that religion motivates behavior and that the individuals in question are unilaterally religious.

The wave a wand thing is interesting but remember that I'm not trying to make an argument about the true nature of Islam/Christianity/etc. because I don't think there is such as thing. Your thought-experiment is essentially "if modern Christianity was more like modern Islam, then you would expect Christians to act more like Muslims." I agree. If you change whatever is currently meant by "Christianity" (that is, as a description of current Christian beliefs and practices) to something entirely different, you would expect different outcomes.


But how does any of that help? I think most people are focused on how to improve the situation. Trying to show that the underlying texts of one religion are slightly easier to twist to extremism than another just isn't helpful, unless you're planning on converting a bunch of Islamic extremists to Christian extremists because then they'll be slightly less bad.

To me it's about as useful as arguing that the high temperatures in the region contribute to extremism. Even if true, in a practical sense it's not useful.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #3 by jester » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:53 am

embracedbias wrote:The theological argument that you want so desperately is based on the false presumption that there are more-or-less true interpretations of a religion. Theology is piss in the wind. I don't need a theological argument. All I need is some knowledge of what Muslims believe. Hence the polling data. Hence my enjoyment of dk's article. Hence the discussion of individual cases where someone said that they did something bad for religion.

I cannot be blamed for you rather amazing inability to grasp this very basic point.

I'm glad you're coming around on the argument though.


Yes, eb, armed with superficial knowledge, and a massive dose of confirmation bias you shall conquer.

Ignorance is bliss.

I grasp your argument quite well, eb. It's just utter shit. It reads like every racist, bigoted intellectual argument of the last few centuries. Your inability and unwillingness to speak with greater specificity is the dead giveaway. But if you have such confidence in it, start drawing up proposals and take it to conferences.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #4 by jester » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:04 am

RTWAP wrote:But how does any of that help? I think most people are focused on how to improve the situation. Trying to show that the underlying texts of one religion are slightly easier to twist to extremism than another just isn't helpful, unless you're planning on converting a bunch of Islamic extremists to Christian extremists because then they'll be slightly less bad.

To me it's about as useful as arguing that the high temperatures in the region contribute to extremism. Even if true, in a practical sense it's not useful.


In truth, there's nothing wrong with the argument as long as you do the work. It increases knowledge, not everything needs to have pragmatic use. Barnard Lewis and company just do a better job of it, because unlike eb they actually know what they're talking about. Of course, even when those folks make it, the argument does not hold up well to scrutiny.

Eb's got a few Pew polls with mixed results, pretty much zero historical, political, cultural and social knowledge, and whole lot of Western chauvinism. The result is pretty straightforward, but he's blind to the problems.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #5 by jester » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:06 am

embracedbias wrote:Lot's of accusations with no specifics. Another quality exchange.

I don't think NSERC would appreciate me doing that. Apart from whatever humanities-esque proposal you had in mind, I would definitely be interested in running some studies with Muslim samples. Very hard to get, though. Maybe some day.


Eb, this entire thread is full of specifics.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 37921
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 146 times

Post #6 by Craig » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:33 am

Did EB really make the argument that capitalism is a belief system that hadn't led people to violence?
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #7 by jester » Sun Feb 08, 2015 9:46 am

Craig wrote:Did EB really make the argument that capitalism is a belief system that hadn't led people to violence?


I think that had more to do with comparative value, but I don't know. Definitely noticed it, though.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #8 by AD » Sun Feb 08, 2015 10:10 pm

I haven't sucked blood in.. weeks!
User avatar
Artie
Registered Broad
Posts: 84558
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:26 pm
Has given rep: 135 times
Received rep: 202 times

Post #9 by Artie » Sun Feb 08, 2015 11:36 pm

I wish Therrien would stick to his lines for as long as you guys are sticking to you POV and this thread
: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: 52729
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 982 times
Received rep: 567 times

Post #10 by Dog » Mon Feb 09, 2015 12:02 pm

embracedbias wrote:Lot's of accusations with no specifics. Another quality exchange.

I don't think NSERC would appreciate me doing that. Apart from whatever humanities-esque proposal you had in mind, I would definitely be interested in running some studies with Muslim samples. Very hard to get, though. Maybe some day.


The eb thread will one day get government research funding?

:stare:
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #11 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:12 pm

Notice the specificity of language, and complete lack of shrinking Muslims and Islamic thought to a homogeneous entity. Something you do constantly, and without remorse.

Food for thought, eb. No one has ever denied the connections between Islam and ISIS. What these pieces get at is that ISIS is effectively the equivalent of a Christian cult that might base itself on the actions of Vlad the Impaler. That Islamic fundamentalism harkens back to medieval thought is not some shocking discovery.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #12 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:34 pm

User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #13 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 1:37 pm

dempsey_k wrote:I think since everyone else is annoyed by this conversation I should just put my cards on the table: I'm mostly informed by Hannah Arendt on this stuff, and I think the work that's come after her, critiquing and building on her theses bears more fruit than thinking Islam is uniquely sinister.


She's a good place to start for a lot of this stuff.

Ordinary Men had a huge impact on how I think about this stuff, too.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #14 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:55 pm

dempsey_k wrote:Just goes to show that reasonable people like us can read something interesting and it only elicits dialogue, while extremists like eb read the same thing and chop people's heads off because of one or two lines that makes them jump from their chair.


To be fair to EB (shut up.. we can do that sometimes too).. his only crime is in the tautology that "Religion is what religious people think it is at any specific time (and nothing else)".
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 37921
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 146 times

Post #15 by Craig » Mon Feb 09, 2015 3:56 pm

AD wrote:To be fair to EB (shut up.. we can do that sometimes too).. his only crime is in the tautology that "Religion is what religious people think it is at any specific time (and nothing else)".


Even that would be fine too if he'd accept that it means that picking on Islam in particular is entirely meaningless.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #16 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:00 pm

Craig wrote:Even that would be fine too if he'd accept that it means that picking on Islam in particular is entirely meaningless.


Well of course. If you define religion with no back story, context or anything elset.. then religion is nothing but an empty bag filled with whatever knowledge/tought a given person has accumulated over the years through whatever education/social conditioning he's endured. And thus not separate of that. If that's true, seeing someone who looks Christian (whatever that means) in a coffee shop shouldn't ellicit any more fear than seeing someone that looks Muslim (whatever that means) because one can't see behind the look as to what's in the bag.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #17 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:13 pm

User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 37921
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 146 times

Post #18 by Craig » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:26 pm

embracedbias wrote:The justification for picking on Islam in particular has to do with a reading of current events. Sure, this is meaningless in a certain sense because the "Islam" in that sentence will change over time. But if the goal is to counteract all of the hand-wringing about Islam (which could get in the way of serious reform within Islam), I think it's quite a meaningful stance to take.


Yeah, which is why I think your stance is reactionary nonsense that has no causal link to the actual root causes of things blowing up.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #19 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:33 pm

Let's play ball EB on current beliefs and forego the last 1500 years of history: Do you think the mainstream run of the mill muslim in Indonesia has beliefs closer to A- the mainstream run of the mill christian in the Philipines or B- the run of the mill member of ISIS in Eastern Syria?
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #20 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 4:55 pm

Big#D wrote:it doesn't matter, banana. as long as one person commits terrorism in the name of his/her religion, that whole religion is likely to be the root cause.


Pessimist.
User avatar
Craig
Registered Broad
Posts: 37921
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Has given rep: 21 times
Received rep: 146 times

Post #21 by Craig » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:06 pm

Yeah, determined by world events. As opposed to determined by the cause of world events or the environments that lead to those causes.

Ugh. I'm so sick of this.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #22 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:17 pm

embracedbias wrote:If "reactionary" means "determined by world events" then sure. Is it better to ignore these things? Or should I put my humanities hat on and ponder the deep meanings of the Qur'an/hadiths/a millennia of theology so that I can make up a complicated and unfalsifiable story about the connection between "Islam" (whatever the hell that means separate from the actual beliefs and practices of Muslims) and current events? The response to which would be "yah, but how do you know that this is causative if you don't look at the beliefs of actual Muslims".


A better perspective on what that effort might supply is humility and awareness, as opposed to presentist tunnel vision and chauvinism.

It's also significant to note that no one you are arguing with here is ignorant, or unaware of current world events. Moreover, no one disputes the shit show that is the Middle East. Grossly simplifying matters to enable brute force arguments is not an intellectual badge of honor to aspire towards.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #23 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:23 pm

embracedbias wrote:I'm making a specific argument about nowadays. I'm not "foregoing" history... it's just not bloody necessary. It would be if I was making an argument about the "essential nature of Islam" which, for the 5,000 time, I clearly am not (though you desperately want me to) because I don't know what that is and don't think anyone does.

But, as to your question, do I think that an Muslim Indonesians religious beliefs are closer to Christian Indonesians or ISIS Muslims? Um, I'm pretty sure the religious beliefs of the two Muslim groups is more similar. Am I missing something here?


Yes. Religion does not define someone in their entirety (no matter how much religious hierarchy may claim to do so). A super wealthy Saudi has a lot more in common with a posh Londoner than he does with ISIS.

You claim history matters not. Is it irrelevant that ISIS grew out of a US prison in Iraq? History has a cumulative effect, eb, no matter how irrelevant you might want it to be.
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #24 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:27 pm

embracedbias wrote:You clearly can't get past your value judgments (which are, of course, totally irrelevant to the discussion) to even attempt to grasp the underlying argument. But I have tunnel vision. :nice:


Eb, one of the cutest aspects of your argument here is your belief that it is some nuanced, difficult to digest thesis.

And, no, the orientalism that is rife throughout your reasoning is very important to your underlying argument. It's the basis of it.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #25 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:28 pm

embracedbias wrote:But, as to your question, do I think that an Muslim Indonesians religious beliefs are closer to Christian Indonesians or ISIS Muslims? Um, I'm pretty sure the religious beliefs of the two Muslim groups is more similar. Am I missing something here?


Yes. Yes you are.

Wow. You think ISIS is closer to mainstream Muslim beliefs than those mainstream beliefs are to other monotheistic religious mainstream beliefs.

I don't know what to say.

:stare:
User avatar
Dog
Registered Broad
Posts: 52729
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:53 pm
Has given rep: 982 times
Received rep: 567 times

Post #26 by Dog » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:30 pm

I blame North Southeastern Saskatchewan for this.

:why:
User avatar
jester
Registered Broad
Posts: 17061
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:38 pm
Has given rep: 8 times
Received rep: 74 times

Post #27 by jester » Mon Feb 09, 2015 6:34 pm

embracedbias wrote:I said that religion defines someone in their entirety and that history matters not.

Or did I say that I'm talking specifically about contemporary religion?


You've refused to actually talk about the latter, because you don't talk about theology. What you have talked about is PEOPLE, who do things supposedly in the name of religion. Unfortunately, people are not blank slates onto which religion arrives.

I mean, really, the truth is that your entire argument is conjecture (which you've admitted) and entirely a byproduct of your reaction to consuming the news and doing little else to inform yourself on the topic.
User avatar
AD
Posts: 67096
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Here
Has given rep: 285 times
Received rep: 324 times

Post #28 by AD » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:33 pm

jester wrote:You've refused to actually talk about the latter, because you don't talk about theology. What you have talked about is PEOPLE, who do things supposedly in the name of religion. Unfortunately, people are not blank slates onto which religion arrives.

I mean, really, the truth is that your entire argument is conjecture (which you've admitted) and entirely a byproduct of your reaction to consuming the news and doing little else to inform yourself on the topic.


Jester. Stop. He thinks mainstream Islam is closer to ISIS' version than it is to mainstream Catholicism.

Full stop. No need to get deeper in this discussion.
User avatar
Fruity Pebbles
Registered Broad
Posts: 2126
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Ottawa
Has given rep: 2 times
Received rep: 7 times

Post #29 by Fruity Pebbles » Mon Feb 09, 2015 7:54 pm

dempsey_k wrote:The readiness to have a discussion about Islam being the most violent religion without knowing virtually anything about it or its history is a uniquely white dude thing.


Amusing - wants discussion but only strawmans positions. This goes for all 3 of you.

Return to “Le mur de messages”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests