Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:31-60|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Tolerance, Islam, Bigotry, and the Left

SeventhProfessor
Posts: 6,568
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:15:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 1:14:48 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 12:49:54 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:29:11 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 3:32:33 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...

Prove that I am violent

Are you a liberal?

progressive liberal to be exact

QED
Stooge the Worst

#StandWithBossy

#UnbanTheCuntMan

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

"SeventhProfessor is actually a surprisingly good poster."
~Devilry

https://docs.google.com...
Hiu
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:17:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 1:15:33 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 6/18/2016 1:14:48 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/18/2016 12:49:54 AM, SeventhProfessor wrote:
At 6/17/2016 10:29:11 PM, Hiu wrote:
At 6/17/2016 3:32:33 AM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...

Prove that I am violent

Are you a liberal?

progressive liberal to be exact

QED

???

Care to elaborate?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 1:36:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2016 4:07:36 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
With a title like that, I still don't know why there's no flame war yet.

Yeah, same here O.o
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 2:48:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2016 6:23:57 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:08:57 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The leftist position is that Islam is not hostile towards gay people (or that it does not hold views on women which are incompatible with feminism)...

Do you have any examples of anyone who actually holds that position? I've never heard of anyone suggesting that Islam is not hostile to gays and somehow compatible with feminism.

It's the party line of the entire left establishment in Europe and America. It's gotten to the point where conservatives are having to come out and say the obvious after the Orlando shooting.

https://english.alarabiya.net...
http://en.cijnews.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://bitchmedia.org...
http://www.mintpressnews.com...
http://www.progressive.org...
http://www.newstatesman.com...

Now, are there people on the left who challenge that narrative? Yes. Bill Maher comes to mind, as does Richard Dawkins. But these people usually face A LOT of flak for voicing their opinions. New Atheism, for example, is steadily drifting to the right because of constant skirmishers with the social justice-oriented left.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:34:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 2:48:36 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:23:57 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:08:57 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The leftist position is that Islam is not hostile towards gay people (or that it does not hold views on women which are incompatible with feminism)...

Do you have any examples of anyone who actually holds that position? I've never heard of anyone suggesting that Islam is not hostile to gays and somehow compatible with feminism.

It's the party line of the entire left establishment in Europe and America. It's gotten to the point where conservatives are having to come out and say the obvious after the Orlando shooting.

https://english.alarabiya.net...
http://en.cijnews.com...

I'm not sure why you posted those two links. Neither seem to directly address my question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://bitchmedia.org...
http://www.mintpressnews.com...
http://www.progressive.org...
http://www.newstatesman.com...

I guess I didn't realize just how ignorant some folks are. My mistake.

Now, are there people on the left who challenge that narrative? Yes. Bill Maher comes to mind, as does Richard Dawkins. But these people usually face A LOT of flak for voicing their opinions. New Atheism, for example, is steadily drifting to the right because of constant skirmishers with the social justice-oriented left.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 3:42:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As someone that doesn't follow any religion, I think Islam is dumb as is Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion I can think of. I don't have a dog in the fight here and if I could wave my hand and abolish all religions, I would.

With that said, religions do exist and we have to deal with them. First thing I'd point out is that there are many different interpretations of religion. I hope I don't need to go into all the atrocities written in the Bible for instance. Almost every religion I can think of off the top of my head has some encouragement of violence in their guidebooks as well as plenty of horrible things that most followers of the religion don't partake in in modern times.

The point is that you can't label people as confirming to a certain religion and make laws or group them all together. Not to mention that extremists and terrorists can use any label they want, call themselves anything they want and smear the name of an entire group. Let's consider an example: if someone from DDO (say jimtimmy) blows up a building and says "DDO is great!" before they die, would you appreciate all of us being grouped into that category and for the media to condemn "DDO terrorism" and ban DDO members from carrying guns and so on and so forth? No, our response would be "that's bullsh1t. That's not what we're representative of as a website."

When a despicable terrorist kills people and claims to do it in the name of Islam, how do you the average peaceful Muslim feels when a terrorist smears the name of THEIR religion to commit atrocious crimes? Obama's refusal to give those terrorists legitimacy is exactly how to deal with situations like this. The conservative position of simply falling into the trap and ALLOWING these terrorists to smear an entire group plays right into their hands.

To tie this back to my main point, I don't care for religion. But I don't think individuals who commit horrific crimes who claim membership in a group should be given what they want and acknowledged as members of that group. I don't care if it's Islam, Christianity, or DDO.

The second point I want to raise is that as long as people follow the law, they should be able to believe what they want religion-wise. There is no "danger" in letting Muslims (or people of any religion) into the country as long as they follow our secular laws. IF they do anything to violate those laws, they should be arrested and dealt with on an individual basis.

The last point I want to raise is that it's not so much religion as some ethno-cultural background behind religion. You can't know someone's religion unless you go to them and ask. How would you know someone is a Muslim? You don't. To compensate for that, people who hate Islam often tend to attack people that "look like Muslims" or "brown people" or "Middle-Eastern/South Asian" people. There have definitely been stories of followers of an Indian religion who wear head coverings being harassed on the basis of being mistaken for Muslims. I think it's unreasonable to expect all brown people or all Middle-Easterners even to account for a religion they don't follow.

My main point overall is that the majority is that a good portion of followers of any religion are peaceful. When extremists and terrorists claim membership in any group, religious or otherwise and use it as justification for their atrocities, why are we sinking our teeth right into that trap and treating them as representatives of the group they claim to be? Who elected them as representatives? Are they doing it with the consent of the group? Should we be accusing the group of things these terrorists do?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:00:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 3:42:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
As someone that doesn't follow any religion, I think Islam is dumb as is Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion I can think of. I don't have a dog in the fight here and if I could wave my hand and abolish all religions, I would.

With that said, religions do exist and we have to deal with them. First thing I'd point out is that there are many different interpretations of religion. I hope I don't need to go into all the atrocities written in the Bible for instance. Almost every religion I can think of off the top of my head has some encouragement of violence in their guidebooks as well as plenty of horrible things that most followers of the religion don't partake in in modern times.

The point is that you can't label people as confirming to a certain religion and make laws or group them all together. Not to mention that extremists and terrorists can use any label they want, call themselves anything they want and smear the name of an entire group. Let's consider an example: if someone from DDO (say jimtimmy) blows up a building and says "DDO is great!" before they die, would you appreciate all of us being grouped into that category and for the media to condemn "DDO terrorism" and ban DDO members from carrying guns and so on and so forth? No, our response would be "that's bullsh1t. That's not what we're representative of as a website."

When a despicable terrorist kills people and claims to do it in the name of Islam, how do you the average peaceful Muslim feels when a terrorist smears the name of THEIR religion to commit atrocious crimes? Obama's refusal to give those terrorists legitimacy is exactly how to deal with situations like this. The conservative position of simply falling into the trap and ALLOWING these terrorists to smear an entire group plays right into their hands.

To tie this back to my main point, I don't care for religion. But I don't think individuals who commit horrific crimes who claim membership in a group should be given what they want and acknowledged as members of that group. I don't care if it's Islam, Christianity, or DDO.

The second point I want to raise is that as long as people follow the law, they should be able to believe what they want religion-wise. There is no "danger" in letting Muslims (or people of any religion) into the country as long as they follow our secular laws. IF they do anything to violate those laws, they should be arrested and dealt with on an individual basis.

The last point I want to raise is that it's not so much religion as some ethno-cultural background behind religion. You can't know someone's religion unless you go to them and ask. How would you know someone is a Muslim? You don't. To compensate for that, people who hate Islam often tend to attack people that "look like Muslims" or "brown people" or "Middle-Eastern/South Asian" people. There have definitely been stories of followers of an Indian religion who wear head coverings being harassed on the basis of being mistaken for Muslims. I think it's unreasonable to expect all brown people or all Middle-Easterners even to account for a religion they don't follow.

My main point overall is that the majority is that a good portion of followers of any religion are peaceful. When extremists and terrorists claim membership in any group, religious or otherwise and use it as justification for their atrocities, why are we sinking our teeth right into that trap and treating them as representatives of the group they claim to be? Who elected them as representatives? Are they doing it with the consent of the group? Should we be accusing the group of things these terrorists do?

My point wasn't about terrorism. It's about beliefs about women and gays which are incompatible with Western culture. As this video proves pretty undoubtedly, Islam in general takes a dim view of gay rights and second wave feminism http://www.youtube.com.... It's their right to have those beliefs. But I think that this also means that our immigration policy should take those beliefs into account, and either ban based on blanket ideology, or very strictly on other bases which coincide with incompatible beliefs. An example would be to allow only higher SES people from Middle Eastern countries, who tend to be more moderate in their views. Another solution would be to lower immigration from areas with large numbers of dangerous brands of Islam (for example, prioritize Azerbaijani Muslims over Deobandis from Pakistan or Afghanistan.) I don't have a huge problem with your position, what annoys me is the refusal of people on the left to look at the problems within Islam realistically because criticizing Islam has become a third rail in left wing dialectic.

My point also isn't that people being let into this country should be policed for their beliefs. It's that immigration policy should take into account 'will this influx of people change our culture in ways which are for the better?' It also means that we should actually surveil people with known connections to mosques which preach that homosexuals ought to be killed, and to actually do something when we have credible reasons to believe that they may carry out an attack like the one in Orlando. It's difficult to do that when any attempt to profile based on religion is met with scorn.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 4:18:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 3:42:20 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
When a despicable terrorist kills people and claims to do it in the name of Islam, how do you the average peaceful Muslim feels when a terrorist smears the name of THEIR religion to commit atrocious crimes? Obama's refusal to give those terrorists legitimacy is exactly how to deal with situations like this. The conservative position of simply falling into the trap and ALLOWING these terrorists to smear an entire group plays right into their hands.

I used to believe that this was the best way to fight terrorism, but I think that I was being naive. Terrorism works for a reason: people are predictable. The idea that we could, as a nation, Zen out and NOT react to these attacks in predictable ways is asking a bit much. I think that that reaction, which exacerbates radicalization issues, cannot be prevented. Moreover, I think that attempts by the left to tamp it down and refusing to say 'radical Islam' has made the reaction worse. What may have started out as a measured, Dawkin-esque critique of Islam has been suppressed, and the result is legions of Brontoraptors waiting in the wings. And every time criticism of Islam is suppressed through no-platforming or petitions, it is just forced underground, into an echo chamber, where it festers. Trump's Muslim ban NEVER would have gained him the surge in popularity that it did if the Pamela Geller subculture hadn't been inculcated and nurtured by this attempt to reduce backlash towards Muslims.

Because of this, I think that the best way to counter terrorism is to reduce them number of Muslims (especially lower SES Muslims) in the country. Similarly to how second generation immigrants are more inclined on average to criminality than first generation immigrants, second generation Muslims are more inclined to terrorism. And we have some second generation Muslims here, and it's very likely that a reduction of Muslim immigration will increase the likelihood that they radicalize. To me, that's an acceptable cost, as a rise in immigration rate will just worsen the problem, and increase the cost of reducing immigration in the future.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 6:56:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
1. Counterpoint: Here's http://www.youtube.com... Kent Hovind's lecture on 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. Look at all those people laughing at his stupid jokes and lapping up his nonsensical viewpoints. Americans. In the United States sitting there at clapping at a moron espousing Creationism/Christian theology.

Before you bring up that this isn't comparable to your video in that they aren't harming anyone, I'll pre-empt that by saying that's not why I posted the video. I posted the video to illustrate that there are all kinds of people who believe in all kinds of different things and we can't generalize. Just as we can't call all Christians morons who think evolution is stupid, we can't say that all Muslims believe the things that are mentioned in your video. Creationism is absolutely a part of Christian theology and is even in the Bible. But we don't generalize it to the whole group. Similarly, you shouldn't generalize what you saw in that video to the entire group of "Muslims." The views espoused by the people in the video are those of the individuals in the video and they alone are responsible for any consequences that could result from them acting on those views. Everyone interprets religion differently. There are dangerous interpretations of every religion and there are peaceful interpretations of every religion. If the pre-requisite for banning immigration of a certain religion is set so low that all you need is that some people have interpreted said religion in a violent way, you should be banning pretty every religious person in the world from immigrating.

2. "beliefs about women and gays which are incompatible with Western culture."

Let's break this down. "Western culture" is an ambiguous term. I'll assume that you are referring to a secular United States by that term. Again, religious people have some pretty backward viewpoints, I will grant. For example the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. But the Catholic church is allowed to exist in the United States. So, why then should we have a problem with mosques that oppose gay marriage existing? We're a secular nation, we should treat all religions equally and let them practice what they want. The law allows gay marriage and that's all that's important. Who cares what religious organizations support or oppose. They are all equally moronic which is why I'm against singling out Muslims specifically. If you want to talk about how all religions are dumb, I'm with you there. The only thing I'm really against is ethnic/religious type discrimination against everyone of Middle-Eastern origin for instance. Should we be preventing low SES atheists from Afghanistan from immigrating here? I think dealing with people individually is more effective than blanket discrimination.

3. If we're profiling people because they have connections to people who preach that homosexuals ought to be killed, then we are profiling them for that specific reason and not because of their religion. I doubt anyone (even us scaaary liberals) have a problem with that.

4. "I used to believe that this was the best way to fight terrorism, but I think that I was being naive."

I don't think you were being naive. I think you had niggling questions that were unanswered when you supported that position which resulted in frustration. If people are forced to be politically correct without complete knowledge of why, they would have latent frustration which would eventually reach a peak and culminate in rebellion.

5. Obama et al refuse to label it "Islamic terrorism" because it is not. Slapping down an inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory label on something while wrongfully accusing millions of people of guilt by association, and providing legitimacy to the terrorists, just to appease ultra-conservatives is a horrendous idea. I 100% agree with you that suppressing critique of Islam leads to it being forced underground and that's one of the reasons Trump gained so much popularity. That's just an effect of doing the right thing. Blaming the liberals for that is like blaming a rape victim for walking alone on the street. The brontoraptors waiting in the wings can account for their own behavior. Why should we say wrong and misleading things just to make sure there is no resentment among the conservatives?

6. The United States was built over centuries of immigration. While there has been arbitrary and unfair control of immigration in the past, that's not ever something we should strive for. I don't think I can respond calmly to that last xenophobic paragraph about how we should limit immigration from some countries because their children will grow up to be criminals and terrorists so I'll compose a response tomorrow.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 7:09:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I do understand why people are mad at Islam. The fact that terrorists have attacked us is undeniable and there is loss and grief from the people affected. But to use a Star Wars analogy because I'm binge-watching the series: in Attack of The Clones, when Anakin Skywalker finds out the sand people killed his mother, he goes on a revenge spree and murder a camp full of sand people: men, women, and children most of whom had nothing to do with killing his mother. Was he justified in doing this because of how his loss affected him? Anyways, you know how the story goes - he was pretty evil on the inside from the start which is why he went over to the dark side so easily.
ofmega
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 7:28:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obama was a Muslim when he was a child, he will not associate Islam with anything negative, but the fact is the extremists have ruined this religion.

BTW an F 16 only has one tail fin, the thing in that picture has 2
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 7:31:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 6:56:49 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
1. Counterpoint: Here's http://www.youtube.com... Kent Hovind's lecture on 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. Look at all those people laughing at his stupid jokes and lapping up his nonsensical viewpoints. Americans. In the United States sitting there at clapping at a moron espousing Creationism/Christian theology.

Before you bring up that this isn't comparable to your video in that they aren't harming anyone, I'll pre-empt that by saying that's not why I posted the video. I posted the video to illustrate that there are all kinds of people who believe in all kinds of different things and we can't generalize. Just as we can't call all Christians morons who think evolution is stupid, we can't say that all Muslims believe the things that are mentioned in your video. Creationism is absolutely a part of Christian theology and is even in the Bible. But we don't generalize it to the whole group. Similarly, you shouldn't generalize what you saw in that video to the entire group of "Muslims." The views espoused by the people in the video are those of the individuals in the video and they alone are responsible for any consequences that could result from them acting on those views. Everyone interprets religion differently. There are dangerous interpretations of every religion and there are peaceful interpretations of every religion. If the pre-requisite for banning immigration of a certain religion is set so low that all you need is that some people have interpreted said religion in a violent way, you should be banning pretty every religious person in the world from immigrating.

It isn't comparable. First of all, those are all Christians of a specific denomination. They aren't being surveyed, even informally. They don't claim to be moderate. I linked to a rather stark video depiction of what polls are telling us about the deplorable stance on gays amongst even moderate Muslims. For example, over half of Muslims in Britain believe that homosexuality should be illegal. You won't find a stat like that in Italy or Alabama.

2. "beliefs about women and gays which are incompatible with Western culture."

Let's break this down. "Western culture" is an ambiguous term. I'll assume that you are referring to a secular United States by that term. Again, religious people have some pretty backward viewpoints, I will grant. For example the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. But the Catholic church is allowed to exist in the United States. So, why then should we have a problem with mosques that oppose gay marriage existing? We're a secular nation, we should treat all religions equally and let them practice what they want. The law allows gay marriage and that's all that's important. Who cares what religious organizations support or oppose. They are all equally moronic which is why I'm against singling out Muslims specifically. If you want to talk about how all religions are dumb, I'm with you there. The only thing I'm really against is ethnic/religious type discrimination against everyone of Middle-Eastern origin for instance. Should we be preventing low SES atheists from Afghanistan from immigrating here? I think dealing with people individually is more effective than blanket discrimination.

There is a world of difference between not believing in gay marriage, and believing that gay people should be executed. The equivocation is puerile at best, and downright insulting at worse. This is exactly what I'm talking about: the rush to make a slapdash comparison between Christianity and Islam instead of turning around and facing the fact that Christian's aren't going around murdering gay people en masse in this country; they're refusing to bake cakes. The worst that you can bring up is Matthew Sheppard, and that was almost two decades ago and a single murder. Catholics believe that gays shouldn't be marrying. They don't believe that they shouldn't be breathing.

3. If we're profiling people because they have connections to people who preach that homosexuals ought to be killed, then we are profiling them for that specific reason and not because of their religion. I doubt anyone (even us scaaary liberals) have a problem with that.

Then why were the investigations against the shooter dropped two times, with a specific call in by a gun shop about a suspicious customer who had been turned away being ignored? Is the FBI just staggeringly incompetent? Or is the public outcry over any appearance of profiling a severe enough deterrent that cases like this are allowed to languish?

4. "I used to believe that this was the best way to fight terrorism, but I think that I was being naive."

I don't think you were being naive. I think you had niggling questions that were unanswered when you supported that position which resulted in frustration. If people are forced to be politically correct without complete knowledge of why, they would have latent frustration which would eventually reach a peak and culminate in rebellion.

Then give me an example of a country defeating asymmetrical warfare through pervasive stoicism in the face of provocation.

5. Obama et al refuse to label it "Islamic terrorism" because it is not. Slapping down an inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory label on something while wrongfully accusing millions of people of guilt by association, and providing legitimacy to the terrorists, just to appease ultra-conservatives is a horrendous idea. I 100% agree with you that suppressing critique of Islam leads to it being forced underground and that's one of the reasons Trump gained so much popularity. That's just an effect of doing the right thing. Blaming the liberals for that is like blaming a rape victim for walking alone on the street. The brontoraptors waiting in the wings can account for their own behavior. Why should we say wrong and misleading things just to make sure there is no resentment among the conservatives?

It is Islamic terrorism. It is terrorism, which is Islamic. We can say that, and then add a 'but'. And I think that people are included in cause and affect, and that multiple people can be held culpable in any tragedy. The fact that people shouldn't walk alone around town at night doesn't remove the blame from the rapist, it's just urging caution. If someone got shot because he called someone's mother a whore, I'd say that yeah, the guy who shot him was wrong, but you shouldn't go around vulgarly insulting the mothers of strangers.

6. The United States was built over centuries of immigration. While there has been arbitrary and unfair control of immigration in the past, that's not ever something we should strive for. I don't think I can respond calmly to that last xenophobic paragraph about how we should limit immigration from some countries because their children will grow up to be criminals and terrorists so I'll compose a response tomorrow.

Our country was built over centuries through *controlled* immigration. And when we had groups which showed a proclivity for engaging in domestic terrorism (communist radicals), we deported them and restricted further immigration.

And how were the old controls arbitrary and unfair? Operation Wetback happened because Mexico WANTED migrant workers back. The wages drawing them here were depleting Mexico's human capital and crippling its growth.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Fly
Posts: 3,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 7:32:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2016 7:08:57 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:47:52 AM, Fly wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

From the above:

"I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology."

"For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible."

Can you expand on the meaning of these two quotes of yours and explain how these two stances are substantively different?

My stance is rooted in pragmatism. I recognize that Islam is hostile towards gay people, but that it's also a deeply seated component of a lot of cultures, and that attempting to remove it from those cultures will cause more harm than good in the long run. But I also don't want to import that culture en masse to secular democracies which do not hold those values. The leftist position is that Islam is not hostile towards gay people (or that it does not hold views on women which are incompatible with feminism), and that there is therefore no good reason to restrict immigration and anyone who wishes to do so is a racist bigot. The former stance is rooted in skepticism of Whiggish utopian thinking, while the latter is rooted in willful ignorance of what Islam is.

Thanks-- that makes sense. Now, you say that many on the right are outright bigoted against Muslims and Islam. What is the difference between that sentiment and wanting to restrict Muslims from immigrating to the U.S.?
"I don"t have faith in faith
I don"t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that"s faith enough for me"
-Rush
Fly
Posts: 3,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2016 7:38:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 7:28:53 AM, ofmega wrote:
Obama was a Muslim when he was a child, he will not associate Islam with anything negative, but the fact is the extremists have ruined this religion.

BTW an F 16 only has one tail fin, the thing in that picture has 2

The picture is of an F/A-18 Hornet or perhaps a Super Hornet. About a year ago, I asked him why he had the name of one jet fighter and the picture of an entirely different jet fighter. I never received a response. No biggy either way...
"I don"t have faith in faith
I don"t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that"s faith enough for me"
-Rush
lotsoffun
Posts: 2,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 1:47:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

This was really well said. sometimes it's difficult to articulate the very, very uncomfortable feeling of the unholy alliance (one sided) between the left in the West and Islam. you articulated this very well. It is much worse in European countries though. they are so tied up in knots and fear of appearing to be racist, that they are sacrificing their people to Islam.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:09:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 7:32:54 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/17/2016 7:08:57 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/17/2016 6:47:52 AM, Fly wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

From the above:

"I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology."

"For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible."

Can you expand on the meaning of these two quotes of yours and explain how these two stances are substantively different?

My stance is rooted in pragmatism. I recognize that Islam is hostile towards gay people, but that it's also a deeply seated component of a lot of cultures, and that attempting to remove it from those cultures will cause more harm than good in the long run. But I also don't want to import that culture en masse to secular democracies which do not hold those values. The leftist position is that Islam is not hostile towards gay people (or that it does not hold views on women which are incompatible with feminism), and that there is therefore no good reason to restrict immigration and anyone who wishes to do so is a racist bigot. The former stance is rooted in skepticism of Whiggish utopian thinking, while the latter is rooted in willful ignorance of what Islam is.

Thanks-- that makes sense. Now, you say that many on the right are outright bigoted against Muslims and Islam. What is the difference between that sentiment and wanting to restrict Muslims from immigrating to the U.S.?

Well, one could want to restrict Muslim immigration for both sophisticated, detached reasons, and out of bigotry. As with most political movements, the more sophisticated position will be held by the leaders, while the emotional, irrational position will be held by the masses.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:12:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 7:38:01 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 7:28:53 AM, ofmega wrote:
Obama was a Muslim when he was a child, he will not associate Islam with anything negative, but the fact is the extremists have ruined this religion.

BTW an F 16 only has one tail fin, the thing in that picture has 2

The picture is of an F/A-18 Hornet or perhaps a Super Hornet. About a year ago, I asked him why he had the name of one jet fighter and the picture of an entirely different jet fighter. I never received a response. No biggy either way...

He identifies as an F/A-18 Hornet. Stop oppressing him!
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:32:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

I feel like most major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are bigoted, but also have people that practice them in a non-bigoted way. In the USA, liberals have been leading the charge for gay rights, and christian republicans have been the biggest opposition to gay rights.

In regard to recent events (the Muslim ban), I believe that freedom of religion should not be compromised because of terrorism Obviously, religion does not give people the right to break American laws. But, I think that looking at Islam as evil, and Christianity as fine, to be a biased view.

I was raised Christian but am an atheist. I acknowledge that currently middle eastern societies are the most evil/violent and these evil things are done in the name of islam. However, I attribute this to the society of the Middle east, rather than Islam itself. There have (and still are) many just as evil things done in the name of Christianity.

There are many decent/good Muslims in the USA & parts of the free world just as there are Christians. I think it is wrong to look down at Islam as evil while Christianity, ect., to be fine, as both are extremely similar.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:39:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Claiming that Liberals embrace violence and bigotry is completely inapropirate. We defend Muslims because simply the people who carry out these terrorist attacks do not follow the core teachings of Islam. White Christian Males have shot up more places then Muslims (Newtown, Aurora, Columbine). Also, Muslims are the main victims of terrorism in the Middle East. It's not exactly to try to seduce voters it's about rejecting bigotry and xenophobia.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:41:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...

Have you seen the Nationalist movement in Europe?
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 12:45:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2016 7:31:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/18/2016 6:56:49 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
1. Counterpoint: Here's http://www.youtube.com... Kent Hovind's lecture on 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. Look at all those people laughing at his stupid jokes and lapping up his nonsensical viewpoints. Americans. In the United States sitting there at clapping at a moron espousing Creationism/Christian theology.

Before you bring up that this isn't comparable to your video in that they aren't harming anyone, I'll pre-empt that by saying that's not why I posted the video. I posted the video to illustrate that there are all kinds of people who believe in all kinds of different things and we can't generalize. Just as we can't call all Christians morons who think evolution is stupid, we can't say that all Muslims believe the things that are mentioned in your video. Creationism is absolutely a part of Christian theology and is even in the Bible. But we don't generalize it to the whole group. Similarly, you shouldn't generalize what you saw in that video to the entire group of "Muslims." The views espoused by the people in the video are those of the individuals in the video and they alone are responsible for any consequences that could result from them acting on those views. Everyone interprets religion differently. There are dangerous interpretations of every religion and there are peaceful interpretations of every religion. If the pre-requisite for banning immigration of a certain religion is set so low that all you need is that some people have interpreted said religion in a violent way, you should be banning pretty every religious person in the world from immigrating.

It isn't comparable. First of all, those are all Christians of a specific denomination. They aren't being surveyed, even informally. They don't claim to be moderate. I linked to a rather stark video depiction of what polls are telling us about the deplorable stance on gays amongst even moderate Muslims. For example, over half of Muslims in Britain believe that homosexuality should be illegal. You won't find a stat like that in Italy or Alabama.

2. "beliefs about women and gays which are incompatible with Western culture."

Let's break this down. "Western culture" is an ambiguous term. I'll assume that you are referring to a secular United States by that term. Again, religious people have some pretty backward viewpoints, I will grant. For example the Catholic Church opposes gay marriage. But the Catholic church is allowed to exist in the United States. So, why then should we have a problem with mosques that oppose gay marriage existing? We're a secular nation, we should treat all religions equally and let them practice what they want. The law allows gay marriage and that's all that's important. Who cares what religious organizations support or oppose. They are all equally moronic which is why I'm against singling out Muslims specifically. If you want to talk about how all religions are dumb, I'm with you there. The only thing I'm really against is ethnic/religious type discrimination against everyone of Middle-Eastern origin for instance. Should we be preventing low SES atheists from Afghanistan from immigrating here? I think dealing with people individually is more effective than blanket discrimination.

There is a world of difference between not believing in gay marriage, and believing that gay people should be executed. The equivocation is puerile at best, and downright insulting at worse. This is exactly what I'm talking about: the rush to make a slapdash comparison between Christianity and Islam instead of turning around and facing the fact that Christian's aren't going around murdering gay people en masse in this country; they're refusing to bake cakes. The worst that you can bring up is Matthew Sheppard, and that was almost two decades ago and a single murder. Catholics believe that gays shouldn't be marrying. They don't believe that they shouldn't be breathing.

3. If we're profiling people because they have connections to people who preach that homosexuals ought to be killed, then we are profiling them for that specific reason and not because of their religion. I doubt anyone (even us scaaary liberals) have a problem with that.

Then why were the investigations against the shooter dropped two times, with a specific call in by a gun shop about a suspicious customer who had been turned away being ignored? Is the FBI just staggeringly incompetent? Or is the public outcry over any appearance of profiling a severe enough deterrent that cases like this are allowed to languish?

4. "I used to believe that this was the best way to fight terrorism, but I think that I was being naive."

I don't think you were being naive. I think you had niggling questions that were unanswered when you supported that position which resulted in frustration. If people are forced to be politically correct without complete knowledge of why, they would have latent frustration which would eventually reach a peak and culminate in rebellion.

Then give me an example of a country defeating asymmetrical warfare through pervasive stoicism in the face of provocation.

5. Obama et al refuse to label it "Islamic terrorism" because it is not. Slapping down an inaccurate, misleading, and inflammatory label on something while wrongfully accusing millions of people of guilt by association, and providing legitimacy to the terrorists, just to appease ultra-conservatives is a horrendous idea. I 100% agree with you that suppressing critique of Islam leads to it being forced underground and that's one of the reasons Trump gained so much popularity. That's just an effect of doing the right thing. Blaming the liberals for that is like blaming a rape victim for walking alone on the street. The brontoraptors waiting in the wings can account for their own behavior. Why should we say wrong and misleading things just to make sure there is no resentment among the conservatives?

It is Islamic terrorism. It is terrorism, which is Islamic. We can say that, and then add a 'but'. And I think that people are included in cause and affect, and that multiple people can be held culpable in any tragedy. The fact that people shouldn't walk alone around town at night doesn't remove the blame from the rapist, it's just urging caution. If someone got shot because he called someone's mother a whore, I'd say that yeah, the guy who shot him was wrong, but you shouldn't go around vulgarly insulting the mothers of strangers.

6. The United States was built over centuries of immigration. While there has been arbitrary and unfair control of immigration in the past, that's not ever something we should strive for. I don't think I can respond calmly to that last xenophobic paragraph about how we should limit immigration from some countries because their children will grow up to be criminals and terrorists so I'll compose a response tomorrow.

Our country was built over centuries through *controlled* immigration. And when we had groups which showed a proclivity for engaging in domestic terrorism (communist radicals), we deported them and restricted further immigration.

And how were the old controls arbitrary and unfair? Operation Wetback happened because Mexico WANTED migrant workers back. The wages drawing them here were depleting Mexico's human capital and crippling its growth.

I am sick of this racism from Trump supporters, and when they try to defend there racism talking about a Religion they don't even understand.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:22:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 12:32:53 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

I feel like most major religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are bigoted, but also have people that practice them in a non-bigoted way. In the USA, liberals have been leading the charge for gay rights, and christian republicans have been the biggest opposition to gay rights.

In regard to recent events (the Muslim ban), I believe that freedom of religion should not be compromised because of terrorism Obviously, religion does not give people the right to break American laws. But, I think that looking at Islam as evil, and Christianity as fine, to be a biased view.

I've never looked at Christianity or Islam as evil.

I was raised Christian but am an atheist. I acknowledge that currently middle eastern societies are the most evil/violent and these evil things are done in the name of islam. However, I attribute this to the society of the Middle east, rather than Islam itself. There have (and still are) many just as evil things done in the name of Christianity.

I mostly agree with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that in certain areas of the world, the vast majority of Muslims hold views which are not compatible with Western secular democracy. It's the fact that these people hold these views, and not the religion itself, which makes me oppose importing them en masse.

There are many decent/good Muslims in the USA & parts of the free world just as there are Christians. I think it is wrong to look down at Islam as evil while Christianity, ect., to be fine, as both are extremely similar.

As I said, I don't see either of them as evil. I just see certain strains of Islam as horrible for both Islam and the West, and I see certain widespread beliefs in areas in the Islamic world as problematic.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:28:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 12:39:51 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Claiming that Liberals embrace violence and bigotry is completely inapropirate.

Where did I say that liberals embrace violence? My point is that self-delusion about Islam is a form of bigotry, because it shows that the left is only capable of 'tolerating' people who agree with it.

We defend Muslims because simply the people who carry out these terrorist attacks do not follow the core teachings of Islam.

What are the core teachings of Islam? Which BRANCH of Islam? They are definitely following the core tenets of Wahhabism, Deobandi revivalism, and other neo-Khawarij movements. That's an overly broad statement.

White Christian Males have shot up more places then Muslims (Newtown, Aurora, Columbine).

Statistics 101: if it isn't per capita, it's meaningless for comparison purposes. If Christians make up 60% of the population, and Muslims make up 2%, and they kill the same amount of people, that means that Muslims kill 30 times as many people as Christians.

Also, Muslims are the main victims of terrorism in the Middle East. It's not exactly to try to seduce voters it's about rejecting bigotry and xenophobia.

It's about virtue signalling and wallowing in self-delusion while remaining just as intolerant of opposing views as your so-called 'bigotted' opposition.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 12:45:55 PM, Lsumichiganfan wrote:
At 6/18/2016 7:31:31 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I am sick of this racism from Trump supporters, and when they try to defend there racism talking about a Religion they don't even understand.

I'd bet a month's pay that I've forgotten more about Islam than you've ever learned. In fact, I'm pretty well known on this cite for DEFENDING Islam. ] http://www.youtube.com...
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
Fly
Posts: 3,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 2:37:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 3:12:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/18/2016 7:38:01 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 7:28:53 AM, ofmega wrote:
Obama was a Muslim when he was a child, he will not associate Islam with anything negative, but the fact is the extremists have ruined this religion.

BTW an F 16 only has one tail fin, the thing in that picture has 2

The picture is of an F/A-18 Hornet or perhaps a Super Hornet. About a year ago, I asked him why he had the name of one jet fighter and the picture of an entirely different jet fighter. I never received a response. No biggy either way...

He identifies as an F/A-18 Hornet. Stop oppressing him!

Be that as it may, his identity could become very controversial when it comes to choosing an appropriate maintenance facility.
"I don"t have faith in faith
I don"t believe in belief
You can call me faithless
But I still cling to hope
And I believe in love
And that"s faith enough for me"
-Rush
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:29:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 2:37:42 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:12:13 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/18/2016 7:38:01 PM, Fly wrote:
At 6/18/2016 7:28:53 AM, ofmega wrote:
Obama was a Muslim when he was a child, he will not associate Islam with anything negative, but the fact is the extremists have ruined this religion.

BTW an F 16 only has one tail fin, the thing in that picture has 2

The picture is of an F/A-18 Hornet or perhaps a Super Hornet. About a year ago, I asked him why he had the name of one jet fighter and the picture of an entirely different jet fighter. I never received a response. No biggy either way...

He identifies as an F/A-18 Hornet. Stop oppressing him!

Be that as it may, his identity could become very controversial when it comes to choosing an appropriate maintenance facility.

BIGOT! There's a right to use WHATEVER maintenance facility one chooses for one's jet implied in the language of the 23rd Ammendment!!!11!
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:41:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

I've never looked at Christianity or Islam as evil.

I was raised Christian but am an atheist. I acknowledge that currently middle eastern societies are the most evil/violent and these evil things are done in the name of islam. However, I attribute this to the society of the Middle east, rather than Islam itself. There have (and still are) many just as evil things done in the name of Christianity.

I mostly agree with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that in certain areas of the world, the vast majority of Muslims hold views which are not compatible with Western secular democracy. It's the fact that these people hold these views, and not the religion itself, which makes me oppose importing them en masse.

There are many decent/good Muslims in the USA & parts of the free world just as there are Christians. I think it is wrong to look down at Islam as evil while Christianity, ect., to be fine, as both are extremely similar.

As I said, I don't see either of them as evil. I just see certain strains of Islam as horrible for both Islam and the West, and I see certain widespread beliefs in areas in the Islamic world as problematic.

There are many people in Middle Eastern Muslim societies that believe repulsive things, that are not compatible with free democracies. However, there are also good people from these societies, who are seeking freedom, and will adapt to American life. Once, they come to America, they live by American law. There are many successful immigrants, and children of immigrants from these societies. Immigrants should be vetted, but terrorism is no need to completely ban what this country was founded upon.

Throughout history, America has welcomed immigrants escaping their former societies and looking for a better life. I do not think that many people is are defending these Middle Eastern societies in which immigrants come. Just that we should not shut off immigration and change who we are, and what has worked for this country because of terrorism.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,513
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:50:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 3:41:24 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I've never looked at Christianity or Islam as evil.

I was raised Christian but am an atheist. I acknowledge that currently middle eastern societies are the most evil/violent and these evil things are done in the name of islam. However, I attribute this to the society of the Middle east, rather than Islam itself. There have (and still are) many just as evil things done in the name of Christianity.

I mostly agree with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that in certain areas of the world, the vast majority of Muslims hold views which are not compatible with Western secular democracy. It's the fact that these people hold these views, and not the religion itself, which makes me oppose importing them en masse.

There are many decent/good Muslims in the USA & parts of the free world just as there are Christians. I think it is wrong to look down at Islam as evil while Christianity, ect., to be fine, as both are extremely similar.

As I said, I don't see either of them as evil. I just see certain strains of Islam as horrible for both Islam and the West, and I see certain widespread beliefs in areas in the Islamic world as problematic.

There are many people in Middle Eastern Muslim societies that believe repulsive things, that are not compatible with free democracies. However, there are also good people from these societies, who are seeking freedom, and will adapt to American life. Once, they come to America, they live by American law. There are many successful immigrants, and children of immigrants from these societies. Immigrants should be vetted, but terrorism is no need to completely ban what this country was founded upon.

Throughout history, America has welcomed immigrants escaping their former societies and looking for a better life. I do not think that many people is are defending these Middle Eastern societies in which immigrants come. Just that we should not shut off immigration and change who we are, and what has worked for this country because of terrorism.

I'm not against a slow trickle of upper SES muslims with crucial skills. I'm against the kind of immigration currently being practiced in the EU, which lead to over 50% of British Muslims believing that homosexuality ought to be outlawed. My position is basically Marine Le Pen's: a border should be a filter, not a wall, and the country should make a concerted effort through both it's cultural and economic policy to spread immigrants out, promote inter-cultural contact, and a strong common national culture centered around liberal Western values. The way the Europe is handling Muslim immigration, and the current Hispanic immigration crisis in the US, are not following this model.
"Partout ou vous verrez un autel, la se trouve la civilisation."
- Joseph de Maistre -

"Woe that I live in bitter days,
As God is setting like a sun
And in his place, as lord and slave,
Man raises forth his heinous throne."
- Translation of 'Rhyfel', by Hedd Wyn -

Virtutem videant intabescantque relicta
twocupcakes
Posts: 3,441
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2016 3:56:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/19/2016 3:50:48 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/19/2016 3:41:24 PM, twocupcakes wrote:

I've never looked at Christianity or Islam as evil.

I was raised Christian but am an atheist. I acknowledge that currently middle eastern societies are the most evil/violent and these evil things are done in the name of islam. However, I attribute this to the society of the Middle east, rather than Islam itself. There have (and still are) many just as evil things done in the name of Christianity.

I mostly agree with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that in certain areas of the world, the vast majority of Muslims hold views which are not compatible with Western secular democracy. It's the fact that these people hold these views, and not the religion itself, which makes me oppose importing them en masse.

There are many decent/good Muslims in the USA & parts of the free world just as there are Christians. I think it is wrong to look down at Islam as evil while Christianity, ect., to be fine, as both are extremely similar.

As I said, I don't see either of them as evil. I just see certain strains of Islam as horrible for both Islam and the West, and I see certain widespread beliefs in areas in the Islamic world as problematic.

There are many people in Middle Eastern Muslim societies that believe repulsive things, that are not compatible with free democracies. However, there are also good people from these societies, who are seeking freedom, and will adapt to American life. Once, they come to America, they live by American law. There are many successful immigrants, and children of immigrants from these societies. Immigrants should be vetted, but terrorism is no need to completely ban what this country was founded upon.

Throughout history, America has welcomed immigrants escaping their former societies and looking for a better life. I do not think that many people is are defending these Middle Eastern societies in which immigrants come. Just that we should not shut off immigration and change who we are, and what has worked for this country because of terrorism.

I'm not against a slow trickle of upper SES muslims with crucial skills. I'm against the kind of immigration currently being practiced in the EU, which lead to over 50% of British Muslims believing that homosexuality ought to be outlawed. My position is basically Marine Le Pen's: a border should be a filter, not a wall, and the country should make a concerted effort through both it's cultural and economic policy to spread immigrants out, promote inter-cultural contact, and a strong common national culture centered around liberal Western values. The way the Europe is handling Muslim immigration, and the current Hispanic immigration crisis in the US, are not following this model.

I agree somewhat. It is important for immigration not to change the culture of the host country. The war and the refugee status make it a complicated situation.

I would be open to reasonable, rational arguments, and statistics to limit immigration. However, I am against the fear mongering arguments, lunacy and rhetoric of Donald Trump.