• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 7 votes

Fitna - why Islam is evil


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#61 nefastor

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 0
  • Location:France

Posted 01 April 2008 - 09:03 AM

While I respect Nefastor's family history and the pain that has been suffered there, I still am uncomfortable with some of the generalizing that is happening in this thread.


Have you considered the fact that religious people DO generalize an awful lot ? Have you ever heard a priest or mollah talk about "moderate atheists" ? All atheists and sinners go to Hell ! Don't you feel uncomfortable about THAT kind of generalization ?

There are extreme Christianists in America that scare the hell out of me. I think they represent a threat to our culture, and when one of their own gets into the Whitehouse, they are a threat to the world.


Oooh, we're talking about Bush here, right ? I love the guy, he's such good argument ammunition ! (and I hereby swear I won't indulge and turn this thread into a Bush-whacking :) thread, the Internet has had enough)

So... when you look at this moron and the lives his presidency has ruined and/or cost, can you tell me religion is a good thing ? Can you show me an actual way or event where religion has saved more people than Bush has killed ? This is not a rhetorical question :

If you can't answer, then it means discussing whether there are moderate believers or not is moot : just like Tobacco, which doesn't kill 100% of its users, religion should be stigmatized as dangerous and banned.

In an interview in the newspaper elsewhere the producer compares the position of Wilders against Islam with the way the start was given to the beginnings to the holocaust in the thirties of the last century. (...)

'Moslems should not allow them to be generalised. The Moslem community should pronounce itself against terrorism more openly.'


Okay, that's one stupid piece of writing if I ever read one. You can't compare the 1930's German Jews and 21st century Muslims.

The Jews did not fly airplanes into the Reichstag, killing thousands. They did not routinely abduct Germans for a ransom or to kill them in the name of their faith. They weren't making any bombs or IED's, and the only Jews interested in atomic weapons were, at that point, working for the German government.

Jews were productive members of German society whose only real "mistake" was that they were too good at what they did, which pissed off someone (Hitler) who wasn't really good at what he did (painting) (he described himself as a misunderstood artist, kinda like Bush says History will judge him a good president)

On the other hand, Muslims did not condemn acts like 9/11, they barely said stuff like "it was regrettable" and "don't judge us all based on that", and "Islam is really about peace and love", but you don't see a worldwide Muslim effort in bringing Bin Laden to justice and stopping Muslim terrorism.

There are no moderate Muslim organizations pushing any agenda of tolerance other than tolerance towards Islam. And as I've already said, there are no Muslim humanitarian organizations.

Muslims DO allow themselves to be generalized. They SHOULD take a stance against terrorism : do you see any rational reason why they don't, except for the fact that anything which serves their cause (Allah) is OK ? (Which Fitna pointed out)

This article you quoted was written by an oblivious moron the caliber of Bill O'Reilly. I find it more shocking than Fitna.

Nefastor

(edited for grammar)

Edited by nefastor, 01 April 2008 - 09:09 AM.


#62 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 01 April 2008 - 03:36 PM

The great American philosopher Rodney King asked "Can we get along?" I hope we can. And all different groups could live side by side in harmony. Like in my neighborhood. To my right I have a Jewish family. To the left a Christian family. Just across the street a Muslim family. All very nice people. It so happens that in each family there is a boy around 12 years old.

I know that the Jewish boy studies the Torah. How God killed a bunch of Egyptians with the 10 plagues and later drowning some more at the sea. It's all baloney but it doesn't affect me if he chooses to believe that.

The Christian kid, a baptist, is learning the new testament. The scarier part is Revelation. God, the 3 of them, together with a bunch of helpers will come down and punish the sinners. All of this will happen after the 2nd coming. I don't believe that will ever come to pass so I don't feel threatened.

I also know that the Muslim kid is studying the Koran. It says that it is his duty to kill me. Now I am worried. I noticed the kid is looking at me in a funny way. And he's growing up fast.
His father is no terrorist. Actually he spoke against terrorism. But why is he forcing his son to study from a terrorist manual?
Muslims in western societies complain, with good reason, of books, pamphlets or videos inciting violence against them. Why don't they understand that we don't like it when their children are indoctrinated from a book calling for our elimination? To regard that book as "holy" doesn't solve the problem, it makes it much worse.

We "infidels" have to keep insisting that it's not acceptable for Muslim children to learn from the Koran at madrassas (or anywhere else), that we should be killed.

#63 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 01 April 2008 - 04:45 PM

Great April Fools day thread! The majority of Muslims are peaceful, and do not teach 'infidels' must die. I'm assuming this thread was created a while back, so it would be around on April Fools day :)

#64 JediMasterLucia

  • Guest
  • 708 posts
  • 221
  • Location:Everywhere and Nowhere on the WWW, The Netherlands

Posted 01 April 2008 - 05:36 PM

I have seen this movie and it shows only the extremist side of the Islam. Wilders did not show solutions to the problems with extremist Muslims.
I think most Muslims want to live in peace like everyone else.

extremism is scary and dangerous
It is wrong to push someones religion or view on other people.
I don't like Islam extremism, Christian extremism or extremism from other religions.

#65

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 01 April 2008 - 05:37 PM

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.

#66 nefastor

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 0
  • Location:France

Posted 02 April 2008 - 02:16 AM

Great post, Inawe, although to me since all the religions you mentioned advocate murder (and indeed murder has often been committed in their name) their "holy scripture" should be considered as a terrorist manual, not just the Quran. Furthermore, if it is OK to teach scripture to kids, then I'd like for people like Hilary Clinton to give video game sex and violence a rest. In Genesis, Mathuselah's daughters decide have sex with him against his will, committing both rape and incest in one go.

Add to that all the Egyptian first-born children God killed, and I have to ask you : exactly where do religions have the moral high ground over gangsta rappers, the latest Doom video game or the Hot Coffee mod of a certain well-known ultra-violent game ?

Violence on TV and in video games doesn't come close to the horrors religions have spawned AND CELEBRATE, yet you don't see a single politician calling to restrict kids' access to scripture.

I think most Muslims want to live in peace like everyone else.


Oh you can trust they do. Simply, their idea of living in peace entails a world with no faith but Islam. Read my previous posts in this thread (I know, it's hard work, I type a lot) for facts and references as to what exactly Muslim faith entails.

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.


Actually, their lack of interest for abortion and stem cell research has nothing to do with tolerance, rationality or sanity. It has to do with the fact that Islam's leadership is a lot smarter than the Christian interest groups who lobby the morons in the US government (starting with the Head Moron, you-know-who).

In the grand Islamic scheme of things, such science may be unholy, but that is no more than a detail compared to vital things such as destroying the modern world's economy. Any strategist worth his salt knows to check his priorities. In this instance, imagine Islam destroys the US government and takes its place, who is going to fund stem-cell research in the US ? Ergo, to the Muslim stem-cell research is a problem that will take care of itself. That is why they don't waste time bitching about it.

The Christians' lack of similar strategic awareness simply stems from the fact that they have been part of the Powers That Be in the modern world for so long they have forgotten how to compete. The Vatican no longer has its mercenary army and its torturers, but Islam does, however : the terrorists.

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 02 April 2008 - 02:22 AM.


#67 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 April 2008 - 02:38 AM

I was reviewing Dennet on a different issue and these videos came up.

Dan Dennett: Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of meme


Daniel Dennett: Freedom of information and toxic religions


#68 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 April 2008 - 03:36 AM

In this instance, imagine Islam destroys the US government and takes its place, who is going to fund stem-cell research in the US

Next, imagine aliens from Pluto destroying the US government and taking its place. Equally likely. Or are you trying to say that George W. Bush is a Muslim? He doesn't want the US government funding stem cell research. That would explain a lot, actually.

#69 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2008 - 03:41 AM

The war could be over today if every single city with a hint of insurgency was wiped off the face of the map.


do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Last straw in a string of hate. Your account has been suspended for 60 days.


Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, atleast with the limited technology we have:)

#70 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 April 2008 - 03:50 AM

Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, at least with the limited technology we have:)


Since for a few more minutes it is still April fools day I will assume that the basis of your statement is jest.

If for a moment I were to take it seriously it would be to show how ignorant a concept it is on its face.

First off you are talking about almost a third of the human race and a majority of whom are innocent and or powerless.

Second, you are talking about destroying yourself in the process.

Somehow that does not strike me as preserving life.

#71 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2008 - 04:05 AM

Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, at least with the limited technology we have:)


Since for a few more minutes it is still April fools day I will assume that the basis of your statement is jest.

If for a moment I were to take it seriously it would be to show how ignorant a concept it is on its face.

First off you are talking about almost a third of the human race and a majority of whom are innocent and or powerless.

Second, you are talking about destroying yourself in the process.

Somehow that does not strike me as preserving life.


I'm not talking about a 3rd of the human race, i'm just saying as a statement that sometimes you do have to take a life to preserve life. I didn't say, lets take muslim lives, for all you know i am a muslim:P But to say i'm ignorant for coming to the conclusion that i've noticed, from studying history, and human nature, thats fine, you know something i don't huh?, i stand by what i said tho.

Edited by senseix, 02 April 2008 - 04:08 AM.


#72 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 April 2008 - 04:18 AM

I didn't call you ignorant I said the idea of killing off all those that threaten us is if it means: "wiping out every single city with a hint of insurgency" is an "ignorant concept".

Remember you chose the quote not I.

(seinseix)

(elrond @ 28-Mar 2008, 11:48 AM) *
QUOTE
The war could be over today if every single city with a hint of insurgency was wiped off the face of the map.

do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Last straw in a string of hate. Your account has been suspended for 60 days.


Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, atleast with the limited technology we have:)


And read carefully I said:

If for a moment I were to take it seriously it would be to show how ignorant a concept it is on its face.


There are a great many erstwhile very intelligent people in this world that harbor *ignorant concepts*.

I just read the words as you presented them and it appears to be a justification of bombing cities that house insurgents to oblivion even if they are a minority of the population.

#73 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 April 2008 - 04:21 AM

So... when you look at this moron and the lives his presidency has ruined and/or cost, can you tell me religion is a good thing ? Can you show me an actual way or event where religion has saved more people than Bush has killed ? This is not a rhetorical question :

If you can't answer, then it means discussing whether there are moderate believers or not is moot : just like Tobacco, which doesn't kill 100% of its users, religion should be stigmatized as dangerous and banned.

you might have missed the last sentence of my earlier post:

I'm not exactly a friend of memetic religions, but some of the commentary here goes too far, in my view.

I'm not here as a pro-religion voice, but more as an anti-genocide one. Whether or not religion has been a net good or a net bad in the course of human history, or how it relates to a failed presidency really isn't the point. Those Dan Dennett videos that Laz posted are very good. Dennett describes the right way to deal with dangerous memes.

#74 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2008 - 04:28 AM

I didn't call you ignorant I said the idea of killing off all those that threaten us is if it means: "wiping out every single city with a hint of insurgency" is an "ignorant concept".

Remember you chose the quote not I.

(seinseix)

(elrond @ 28-Mar 2008, 11:48 AM) *
QUOTE
The war could be over today if every single city with a hint of insurgency was wiped off the face of the map.

do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars. Last straw in a string of hate. Your account has been suspended for 60 days.


Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, atleast with the limited technology we have:)


And read carefully I said:

If for a moment I were to take it seriously it would be to show how ignorant a concept it is on its face.


There are a great many erstwhile very intelligent people in this world that harbor *ignorant concepts*.

I just read the words as you presented them and it appears to be a justification of bombing cities that house insurgents to oblivion even if they are a minority of the population.



Well i clarified it in my 2nd post so you would understand what my itent was. You read the words how you wanted to take them, when my intent was made clear, the issue could of been resolved, but you keep going on about bombing a minority of the population and again thats your words not mine. So if you feel that my belief, that taking life is sometimes needed to preserve life, is an ignorant belief, thats great.

Just look at hostage situations, where people kill the hostage taker to save the lives of many. I suppose thats ignorant then? If it is enlighten me, i see now it wasen't very clear my first post, thats life, it happens when you type words out and can't always be perfect:)

Edited by senseix, 02 April 2008 - 04:29 AM.


#75 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 April 2008 - 04:39 AM

Well i clarified it in my 2nd post so you would understand what my itent was. You read the words how you wanted to take them, when my intent was made clear, the issue could of been resolved, but you keep going on about bombing a minority of the population and again thats your words not mine. So if you feel that my belief, that taking life is sometimes needed to preserve life, is an ignorant belief, thats great.

Just look at hostage situations, where people kill the hostage taker to save the lives of many. I suppose thats ignorant then? If it is enlighten me, i see now it wasen't very clear my first post, thats life, it happens when you type words out and can't always be perfect:)

Senseix the issue is not about killing a hostage taker to defend the innocent it is about killing the hostage in the process to stop the hostage taker from ever doing so again.

The original poster was clearly describing an act that rationalizes the use of collective punishments and all you have to do to distance yourself from that idea is to chose a better quote rather than further trying to nuance and rationalize what you meant instead of what you said.

I responded to what you said, (and clarified it) not to what you *meant* to say.

The majority of people in those cities are innocent hostages to the extremists that live among them. By rationalizing the victimization of such populations in order to get at a few among them, we end up radicalizing larger and larger segments of such groups, only ensuring an ongoing conflict and making it first generational and later a *cultural* war.

I understand the idea of using violence to protect the innocent but such measures must be applied surgically not collectively.

#76 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2008 - 04:53 AM

Well i clarified it in my 2nd post so you would understand what my itent was. You read the words how you wanted to take them, when my intent was made clear, the issue could of been resolved, but you keep going on about bombing a minority of the population and again thats your words not mine. So if you feel that my belief, that taking life is sometimes needed to preserve life, is an ignorant belief, thats great.

Just look at hostage situations, where people kill the hostage taker to save the lives of many. I suppose thats ignorant then? If it is enlighten me, i see now it wasen't very clear my first post, thats life, it happens when you type words out and can't always be perfect:)

Senseix the issue is not about killing a hostage taker to defend the innocent it is about killing the hostage in the process to stop the hostage taker from ever doing so again.

The original poster was clearly describing an act that rationalizes the use of collective punishments and all you have to do to distance yourself from that idea is to chose a better quote rather than further trying to nuance and rationalize what you meant instead of what you said.

I responded to what you said, (and clarified it) not to what you meant to say.

The majority of people in those cities are innocent hostages to the extremists that live among them. By rationalizing the victimization of such populations in order to get at a few among them we end up radicalizing larger and larger segments of such groups only ensuring an ongoing conflict and making it first generational and later a *cultural* war.

I understand the idea of using violence to protect the innocent but such measure must be applied surgically not collectively.


I did distance myself from your view of what you thought i meant, you keep holding on to that quote someone else made like my intent was what you felt it was by using it, well i've done told you it wasen't what you felt it was, confusion on forums are going to happen if i use a different quote or not, thats life, maybe if this place had a better quote system, this issue would be reduced. Many wars have been started because of misunderstandings, specially when the people who misunderstood are stubborn, and aggressive, thats about all you'll hear from me on this issue tho, you know how i feel the world knows, if its an ignorant concept to you, great we all can't agree 100% of the time can we:)

Edited by senseix, 02 April 2008 - 04:54 AM.


#77 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 02 April 2008 - 05:06 AM

I did distance myself from your view of what you thought i meant, you keep holding on to that quote someone else made like my intent was what you felt it was by using it, well i've done told you it wasen't what you felt it was, confusion on forums are going to happen if i use a different quote or not, thats life, maybe if this place had a better quote system, this issue would be reduced. Many wars have been started because of misunderstandings, specially when the people who misunderstood are stubborn, and aggressive, thats about all you'll hear from me on this issue tho, you know how i feel the world knows, if its an ignorant concept to you, great we all can't agree 100% of the time can we:)


Most of that response Senseix is in reference to the second example you offered about a hostage, not about the first example per se. Yes I clarified further so as to make the distinction. I am glad you are distancing yourself from that original quote but it seems you have a problem with aggression; yet is not violence predicated on aggression?

So I ask you: just how are you intending the use of violence?

When is its use rationally justified?

Ironically I am not being aggressive though you consider my response such and that exemplifies exactly what you lament when you outline how misunderstandings lead to violence. I happen to agree, but the use of force no matter how nobly justified is predicated on the use of violence. Whether as a force of arms or ideas this use of force is perceived of as aggression even when *nonviolent*.

If you accept that aggression is justified in the defense of the innocent wherein the focus of such aggression is concentrated on the perpetrator *only* then is it not also justified in the defense of peace wherein the idea of peacful coexistence is being held hostage to the idea of "might making right?"

I apologize if you think I am being aggressive because I *challenge* your point of view but please recognize it is not personal.

#78

  • Lurker
  • 0

Posted 02 April 2008 - 05:25 AM

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.


Heh, that's because it is largely non-Muslims that are having the abortions - islamacists probably view it as a blessing as it makes things easier for them; they don't even have to kill us, just keep breeding and immigrating while we kill our babies.

Edited by ludongbin, 02 April 2008 - 05:31 AM.


#79 nefastor

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 0
  • Location:France

Posted 02 April 2008 - 10:45 AM

Thank you, Lazarus. I didn't know Dennett and now I've found myself a hero :) I'm humbled.

"A virus is a string of nucleic acids with an attitude." :~ ROFL :p best description ever, and I've been to medical school.

Denett has perfectly explained what I've been doing in this thread, in the first video (with his example about AIDS, around 14 minutes in) : I have relatives who have died because of Islam, but instead of hating Islam I took a serious look at it, to understand why and how it caused my ancestors death. And it is the result of my observations I have been sharing with you here :

"There's plenty of room for moral passion one we've got the facts and figure out what to do."


5-6 minutes in the second video, Denett makes a point I've recently made in conversation with a priest : basically, I was saying that although religions are at odds with science, you don't see religion relying on its own omnipotent, omniscient God(s) for things like designing a temple that won't fall apart, with plumbing that won't be leaky. When it comes to that sort of thing, religions will gladly (though silently) accept that science and technology are superior to blind belief and Gods.

In this instance, imagine Islam destroys the US government and takes its place, who is going to fund stem-cell research in the US

(...) are you trying to say that George W. Bush is a Muslim? He doesn't want the US government funding stem cell research. That would explain a lot, actually.

You've missed my point : when I say "imagine", I was meaning "imagine a religion" taking over government. Doesn't matter which one and what kind of science it might hate. Could be Islam after some sort of religious war, could be Christians after some heavy lobbying and networking... oh, wait, we're already there, aren't we ? Check this out :


(you can skip the first minute)

And what's ironic, in the last seconds of this video Maher makes the same point I've just made about religion's omniscience and church-building.

Senseix : why do you think I write such long posts ? Precisely to try to make sure no one misinterprets what I write. You can't write a one-line statement such as :

Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, atleast with the limited technology we have:)

And seriously hope people won't interpret them any way they want. And Lazarus is right : you choice of quotes didn't help. If I made all my points in one-sentence posts, my post count would be in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds. And I still get misinterpreted sometimes (case in point : niner, just above)

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.

Heh, that's because it is largely non-Muslims that are having the abortions - islamacists probably view it as a blessing as it makes things easier for them; they don't even have to kill us, just keep breeding and immigrating while we kill our babies.


You have no idea how right you are on the breeding part. As you know, France has "social security" : part of it is socialized medicine, and another part of it is a financial aid to families for every children they have (in France you actually get paid to have kids : a family with four kids can get by without either parents working).

Statistics have shown that immigrant Muslim families in France average about 4 children, whereas native French families average slightly less than two kids. It's often pointed out as one of the reason our social security system is going bankrupt. You will find a similar situation in the UK (it's probably worse there)

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 02 April 2008 - 10:51 AM.


#80 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 02 April 2008 - 06:03 PM

Thank you, Lazarus. I didn't know Dennett and now I've found myself a hero :) I'm humbled.

"A virus is a string of nucleic acids with an attitude." :~ ROFL :p best description ever, and I've been to medical school.

Denett has perfectly explained what I've been doing in this thread, in the first video (with his example about AIDS, around 14 minutes in) : I have relatives who have died because of Islam, but instead of hating Islam I took a serious look at it, to understand why and how it caused my ancestors death. And it is the result of my observations I have been sharing with you here :

"There's plenty of room for moral passion one we've got the facts and figure out what to do."


5-6 minutes in the second video, Denett makes a point I've recently made in conversation with a priest : basically, I was saying that although religions are at odds with science, you don't see religion relying on its own omnipotent, omniscient God(s) for things like designing a temple that won't fall apart, with plumbing that won't be leaky. When it comes to that sort of thing, religions will gladly (though silently) accept that science and technology are superior to blind belief and Gods.

In this instance, imagine Islam destroys the US government and takes its place, who is going to fund stem-cell research in the US

(...) are you trying to say that George W. Bush is a Muslim? He doesn't want the US government funding stem cell research. That would explain a lot, actually.

You've missed my point : when I say "imagine", I was meaning "imagine a religion" taking over government. Doesn't matter which one and what kind of science it might hate. Could be Islam after some sort of religious war, could be Christians after some heavy lobbying and networking... oh, wait, we're already there, aren't we ? Check this out :


(you can skip the first minute)

And what's ironic, in the last seconds of this video Maher makes the same point I've just made about religion's omniscience and church-building.

Senseix : why do you think I write such long posts ? Precisely to try to make sure no one misinterprets what I write. You can't write a one-line statement such as :

Sometimes you have to take life to preserve it, atleast with the limited technology we have:)

And seriously hope people won't interpret them any way they want. And Lazarus is right : you choice of quotes didn't help. If I made all my points in one-sentence posts, my post count would be in the tens of thousands, not the hundreds. And I still get misinterpreted sometimes (case in point : niner, just above)

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.

Heh, that's because it is largely non-Muslims that are having the abortions - islamacists probably view it as a blessing as it makes things easier for them; they don't even have to kill us, just keep breeding and immigrating while we kill our babies.


You have no idea how right you are on the breeding part. As you know, France has "social security" : part of it is socialized medicine, and another part of it is a financial aid to families for every children they have (in France you actually get paid to have kids : a family with four kids can get by without either parents working).

Statistics have shown that immigrant Muslim families in France average about 4 children, whereas native French families average slightly less than two kids. It's often pointed out as one of the reason our social security system is going bankrupt. You will find a similar situation in the UK (it's probably worse there)

Nefastor


Thats my point, no matter what you do, posts will be misinterpreted, that i have no issue with, just a reality. It's the way people act when they don't get it, that sometimes is annoying so i responded in kind.:) It would of been nice if the person who didn't understand what i meant, didn't focus on what they misunderstood, but after i clarify, focus on what my intent was. Then we wouldn't of had 3 or 4 posts back and forth, instead the person wanted to focus on his interpretation which they were clearly wrong, i made it clear quickly, yet they wanted to go on and on.

Just doesn't make sense, not everyone is going to be able to post long posts all the time, not everyone can post perfect, not everyong uses quotes perfectly every time, so with knowing that, when you do misinterpret something, and then the person lets you know you did so, why not just move on in a postiive note, instead of being even more negative, far as i'm concerned. Calling someones view ignorant, even tho he clearly didn't get my view, to me is an ignorant view just my 2 cents:)

And last point, Lazarus was quick to point out the flaws in my posting, tho i admitted hey i could of made the first post clearer, so i understood why the initial confusion started. Then his responses to me after i cleared it up, were they perfect? could he of done a better job in the way he interacted with me? I feel he could of. Once i made myself clear, we could of focused on my intent, instead of focusing on how i could of posted better, when i myself admiited it wasen't perfect. In the end, my message was lost, and the message Lazarus wanted to get across over powered mine, sad if you ask me. Final throught, it would be nice if everyone coule kiss and make up.

So my intent again because i felt my message was lost, with all this back and forth is. Sometimes you have to take a Life to save a Life.

Edited by senseix, 02 April 2008 - 06:30 PM.


#81 nefastor

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 0
  • Location:France

Posted 02 April 2008 - 09:29 PM

Thats my point, no matter what you do, posts will be misinterpreted, that i have no issue with, just a reality. It's the way people act when they don't get it, that sometimes is annoying so i responded in kind.:~

Words that tell me you completely fail to realize you're posting for other HUMANS to read, and that it's always polite not to waste other people's time.

You have a choice between making a post solid enough people don't have to ask what you mean (which costs YOU time to type) or posting a stupid out-of-context one-liner, which will waste the time of all who try to get your point.

This is a forum, not a real-time conversation. If your posts are dependent on further clarification the time you waste is measured in hours or even days. Same way you don't ask for help on a technical forum without providing the make and model of whatever hardware you have trouble with, you shouldn't put the burden on others to try and guess what are your points. It's lazy and in some case it betrays the fact the poster has no point to make.

It would of been nice if the person who didn't understand what i meant, didn't focus on what they misunderstood, but after i clarify, focus on what my intent was. Then we wouldn't of had 3 or 4 posts back and forth, instead the person wanted to focus on his interpretation which they were clearly wrong, i made it clear quickly, yet they wanted to go on and on.


Perhaps we are getting back at you for the time you cost us by NOT spending time to make a sensible initial post ? :)

Not everyone is going to be able to post long posts all the time, not everyone can post perfect quotes,


No one's demanding perfection here, we're only human. And no one expects you to ALWAYS post small novels. Take me for instance : I've had a couple of YEARS where I haven't posted anything, because I had too much work. Now I have more time, so I'm posting.

And really, using quotes isn't that hard if you know how to use a mouse. And again it's faster and much nicer for those who read you when they don't have to GUESS which part of some gigantic post you're referring to.

Really man, a forum is serious stuff. You're exchanging ideas with people the world over, whose time is at least as precious as yours. That kind of activity deserves taking more than 30 seconds to make a post. It's a matter of respect towards both the people who read you and the ideas that are being discussed. At least that's how I see things.

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 02 April 2008 - 09:32 PM.


#82 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 April 2008 - 09:47 PM

Muslims arn't all bad, they don't piss and moan about abortion and stem cell research. So they can be quite rational and sane.


Heh, that's because it is largely non-Muslims that are having the abortions - islamacists probably view it as a blessing as it makes things easier for them; they don't even have to kill us, just keep breeding and immigrating while we kill our babies.

No one is killing babies, except a few women who should have aborted, but didn't. (Newborns turning up in trashcans, and the like.) We are killing fetuses. A fetus is not a baby.

#83 mentatpsi

  • Guest
  • 904 posts
  • 36
  • Location:Philadelphia, USA

Posted 03 April 2008 - 12:45 AM

First let me say, "Evil" is an absolute concept popularized by religion and our story telling. The passage of time has shown it to be more of a relative concept dependent on the general populace... only fools employ this word as an attack. How strange that Gash, the topic starter, was with one hand handing this insult and with another, saying we must exterminate Muslims…

I'm sure most of you are aware that Oil is the major economic export these countries... the issue here is that instead of using the money to better educate (science) their populace and provide for a more booming economy through education, you see them using the wealth to further enforce their rules. You see them subjecting their populace to rather poor conditions by not investing enough, and increasing their own living conditions. You see the schools in which they provide instead and the combination of Church and state as a ruling body. Yet we remain stagnant because we’re in a deadlock and require the oil as a means for all our necessities and conveniences. Btw… how is this inaction not “Evil”? Walmart nation I suppose…

You must also see how easy it is to maintain absolute rule founded on religion on a populace living in poor conditions. Every single religion has taught justified killing or has manipulated the books (through interpretation) to make it in the interest of the ruling body... so is the fate of religion. For anyone so cruelly to call a complete branch of humanity (through generalization I may add), evil, is to me a clear indication of the ignorance contained within people. More importantly, I do not understand how anyone can even see committing a mass genocide as a solution. How do people not see the hypocrisy in such a solution? One accuses them of wanting to kill all people who aren’t Muslim for Allah… and yet one would kill them all for attaining a perceived safety and stability within society…

The whole Middle East situation is highly complex. The deadlock previously mentioned prevents any type of progressive change in power from occurring. It also maintains the ignorance and hatred that is being taught through the generations that acts as fuels for such acts. Another question of interest: once we find a good alternative form of energy, what will happen in these areas? Think on this one... who funds suicide bombing... what maintains a religious state... what is the behavioral pattern of all giant corporations...

Edited by mysticpsi, 03 April 2008 - 12:51 AM.


#84 senseix

  • Guest
  • 250 posts
  • 1

Posted 03 April 2008 - 07:32 AM

Words that tell me you completely fail to realize you're posting for other HUMANS to read, and that it's always polite not to waste other people's time.



Those words make you think i don't get i'm typing so humans can read, then you're naive imho, it's not always polite Nefastor, to talk to a grown person, about how he must not realize he is talking to humans when he types on a forum!!! Are you kidding? Must be nice Nefastor to tell someone how they aren't polite and be yourself not very polite, shame on you really, hypocrite comes to mind!!! Just because i sometimes use a few words to make a point doesn't make my intent is to waste someones time, or it surely isn't a sign that i don't realize humans are reading my posts, tho the way you keep typing back to me i'm starting to wonder!!! Nefostor you use a bloated page to make your points which makes me HAHAHA i guess being polite means to you typing a few hundred words, but not worry about the content in it. So why don't you before you tell me about being polite, learn the definition of it yourself?

Perhaps we are getting back at you for the time you cost us by NOT spending time to make a sensible initial post ? ;)


Perhaps, you're but what is this, a pack of hounds? ready to pounce on someone who has a valid point to make, and doesn't feel typing hundreds of words to make it. So you want me to conform to your posting style, by getting back at me, why don't you grow up Nefastor, seriously.

You have a choice between making a post solid enough people don't have to ask what you mean (which costs YOU time to type) or posting a stupid out-of-context one-liner, which will waste the time of all who try to get your point.


The point i made was not a stupid out of context one liner!!!!, it fits in this thread, were talking about killing people, some are talking about killing large groups, others are not. My point, that we sometimes have to kill people to save people, is a great one liner, that really makes sense from where i sit, and i haven't seen too many people tell me in this thread it doesn't so what are you babbling about? There are more choices when posting than the two you seemed to want to parade as the choices to make:) i guess what i'm saying, is there is a grey area of posting as well, its not black and white like you type it out to be, would be nice, but you're flat wrong. I myself at first understood what i typed and didn't think it would be an issue, being a long post or short post doesn't mean its going to be clear or not clear, your way of thinking to me is flawed, i'm sure you don't care for the way i think either, so be it:)


Not everyone is going to be able to post long posts all the time, not everyone can post perfect quotes
No one's demanding perfection here, we're only human. And no one expects you to ALWAYS post small novels. Take me for instance : I've had a couple of YEARS where I haven't posted anything, because I had too much work. Now I have more time, so I'm posting.

And really, using quotes isn't that hard if you know how to use a mouse. And again it's faster and much nicer for those who read you when they don't have to GUESS which part of some gigantic post you're referring to.

Really man, a forum is serious stuff. You're exchanging ideas with people the world over, whose time is at least as precious as yours. That kind of activity deserves taking more than 30 seconds to make a post. It's a matter of respect towards both the people who read you and the ideas that are being discussed. At least that's how I see things.



Well look, i'm touched that you wanted to share with me, why you didn't post boring novels before, thanks, but again you waste my time "tho you want to talk about how i wasted others time lol" by typing so much, just get to your point man would you:) Either way, you post how you feel, tho i wish you would shorten your posts a bit, seriously, and i'll try to lengthen mine when needed, tho to make my intial point i don't feel it was needed and still don't, it was the quote that i should of fixed more than anything. "oh i know how to use a mouse, thanks for down talking to me about how easy it is to use one with quotes, you woke me up see i figured it out cuz of you man bravo" Thanks you're a hero:P

I always find it funny, when someone does things different than someone else, instead of just accepting it, they want to criticize, or point how their method is better, well your method isn't better in all cases surely not in my case either, funny you admit your method didn't work for you when life was different for you. Umm what makes you think my life is like yours where i can post each time novels to get a point across? Either way, i'm done with you too, you wasted enough of my time, again the point i wanted to get across is: You sometimes have to take a life, or lives, to save a life or lives, Anyone want to debate that point i'm open, if you want to debate my methods of posting, and all that jazz i'll just ignore you, i have made all the points i need too on this topic, i won't change my views because you feel your views are better or correct, not gonna happen so give it up:)

#85 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 03 April 2008 - 05:03 PM

This thread didn't start well and it's now going way off course. But it was related, at the beginning, to an event that provides illustration of several problems in our world.

The thread was prompted by the urge of a sickly mind to call for the annihilation of a group of people. The excuse was the short movie FITNA made by the Dutch politician Wilders.

Besides whether senseix's posts were too short at first and now too long, there are issues worth discussing connected to Fitna. Just a few:

1-It's clear that one (may be the main) purpose of Wilders was to incite sentiments, and may be violence, against muslims. He would like to see muslim immigration to Holland restricted. Or even more extreme, to kick them out of the country. What right has anybody to decide who can and who cannot live in a given country?

2-The movie was available for viewing at a website and was then taken out. This happened because the website owners received serious threats. This brings up again the issue of freedom of expression. Are we willing to accept that extremists group impose censorship by issuing threats?

3-In the movie real quotations from the Koran were presented. These suras call for the extermination of Christians, Jews and infidels in general. This is what Dan Dennett calls a toxic religion. At least it's the toxic part of that religion. In order to be able to live in a better world, it's imperative for toxic (parts of) religions to become extinct.

There is a choice now. Discuss things related to Fitna or the writing prowess of senseix. If the later is chosen I suggest the tittle of the thread be changed appropriately, so I can ignore it.

#86 nefastor

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 0
  • Location:France

Posted 03 April 2008 - 10:07 PM

1-It's clear that one (may be the main) purpose of Wilders was to incite sentiments, and may be violence, against muslims. He would like to see muslim immigration to Holland restricted. Or even more extreme, to kick them out of the country. What right has anybody to decide who can and who cannot live in a given country?

That would be the people who live in that country, abide by its laws, which they have voted for and pay taxes to enforce.

If a people is to be sovereign, it has to have the right to keep whoever it wants out of its land. If a people is to be sovereign, it has to be able to do so without even having to justify itself to the world at large or even to the people it wants to keep outside of its borders. This is what sovereignty means.

And if you were really serious about your question, then please justify the existence of the INS in what Americans like to call the "land of the free". I can tell you I'd get kicked out the US pretty fast if I tried to work there without an H1-B visa, which is a pain in the @$$ to obtain, and yet I'm a healthy white male rocket scientist with no criminal record.

I'll say it again : to understand Wilders' point and agree with them, you need to have actually lived in a country with growing Muslim communities. I'm serious here, they are NOT friendly neighbors. They are passive-aggressive at the best of times, and you can hardly find a riot in France where they don't play an active part. I already linked to the 2005 civil unrest in France but forgot about the 2007 civil unrest in France. Once again, Muslims fled the police, got into an accident, died and who did the Muslim community blame ? THE POLICE of course ! They proceeded to injure 130 police officers in riots that included SHOOTINGS.

There's a reason (many reasons, in fact) why an extreme right-wing politician (Le Pen) almost became president in 2002 : the French people is growing increasingly uncomfortable living with Muslims. And just so you know, Sarkozy got elected in part by taking many of Le Pen's points and solutions and coating them in more politically-correct words. When he says "suburbs" and "insecurity", everyone knows who he's really talking about, even if no one will actually say it aloud.

Should Europe ever get around kicking the Muslims out, it wouldn't even be the first time. I don't know if they even teach that in your country's history classes (I'm assuming you're American), but Spain was once conquered by the Muslim, who remained there from the 8th to 15th century : 750 years ! Spanish Jews and Christians were faced with a choice between fleeing to other countries, converting to Islam... or death. Look-up "Reconquista" on Google.

Obviously the Muslims did try to expand to France back then, and they were repeatedly kicked-out with extreme prejudice by heroes we still celebrate : Charles Martel and his grandson Charlemagne being the most famous. Compared to these strategists, the whole Pentagon looks like a mental institution run by its inmates. In fact, Martel started the Reconquista.

It's for this kind of reason that any European with a little knowledge of history looks at Fitna not like a piece of racist propaganda meant only to shock, but as a reminder that we're about to let history repeat itself. The reason why the reactions are so quiet, however, is that even in Europe it's always hard to speak out against a religion, ANY religion.

2-The movie was available for viewing at a website and was then taken out. This happened because the website owners received serious threats. This brings up again the issue of freedom of expression. Are we willing to accept that extremists group impose censorship by issuing threats?

I'm not sure that's the right question there. You have a guy who says something like "Islam is all about intolerance" and immediately he's proven right. Again, this is not the first time it's happened.

What we should be asking is this : we can't prevent Islamic terrorism, so should we still respect Islam because some Muslims aren't terrorists ?

Let me put it another way : imagine you could see into the future and were revealed a second 9/11-style attack, and the ONLY way you could prevent it was by forcibly suppressing Islam : would you choose to let innocent people die just because you want to respect the beliefs of a large number of non-terrorists Muslims ? Or would you choose to put the survival of thousands above the beliefs of millions ? Detail your work.

I'll still answer YOUR question : yes. If you've read what LiveLeak posted about the whole mess, it basically says that they cannot defend their own lives and therefore have no choice but to comply with the demands of those who threaten them. That, my friend, is what happens when your sovereignty is weak. The LiveLeak people acknowledged that Islam has more power in their country than the army, the police and even the people combined !

Freedom of expression was EFFECTIVELY trampled. I'd consider this a great military victory for Islam. To understand why I say that, read the Art of War's very first page. War is for leaders too stupid to be able to win a fight without starting a war.

3-In the movie real quotations from the Koran were presented. These suras call for the extermination of Christians, Jews and infidels in general. This is what Dan Dennett calls a toxic religion. At least it's the toxic part of that religion. In order to be able to live in a better world, it's imperative for toxic (parts of) religions to become extinct.

Yeah, but the toxic parts of religion are like cancer, because religion is not about rationality. Suppose you eliminate all the hateful parts about the Quran ? Well, among what little would be left is the interdiction to eat pork meat. Seems quite inoffensive, right ? Most people have stuff they hate the taste of, without even needing a religion to justify it. I don't eat Rocquefort cheese because I hate its smell. Never even took a taste of it.

Well, in France, there have been many cases of Muslim uproar because it turned out some dish served in some school restaurant to some Muslim kid might have contained pork. Cue the demonstrations, insults and car-burnings as a perfectly honest mistake (not even a mistake, really) gets turned into a hate-crime against the entire Muslim world. Never mind the fact that no one forces kids to eat at the school restaurant every single day, the menu of which is always displayed a week in advance for parental consumption. The way this usually ends is with the cook being fired to appease the crowd. Medieval but true, sadly.

My point is, religion creates division, and human beings like to fight and hate whoever is not like them. It's a primal, prehistoric tribe thing but it's real nonetheless. We will use the silliest reasons to kill each other, and if all that remains of the Quran was its punctuation, you'd still find people killing each other over it.

Which is why all religions should be relegated to the history books and everyone should embrace facts and science : you'll never see people killing each other over whether 1 + 1 actually equals 2 or not, or the fact that a proton is 1836 times heavier than an electron. Because if it weren't true we wouldn't be having this conversation : the Internet wouldn't work the way we've designed it. There is no room for division or alternate gospel here.

Besides, in the age of computers, you really can't hope to excise only parts of any holy book : there will always be intact copies somewhere, and there will always be a country where you DON'T have sovereignty (say, Afghanistan) where people will maintain the hate alive and intact and spread it. And the Afghanis do have global reach, using both the internet and kamikazes, as 9/11 proved.

The kind of social engineering Dennett suggests is what engineers call a "perfect world scenario" : meaning a scenario where you actually have all the time in the world, and no petty thing like a limited budget or the ideas of a stupid boss are taken into account. As any engineer will tell you, when this kind of scenario collides with reality, it ends-up drowning in compromises until it has become a whole new scenario entirely. You end-up with software that's buggy on its release date and requires multiple patches, or cars that have to be recalled because of a severe defect.

What it means for social engineering is you start with a good intention and sound plan, but you end-up making so many concessions and trade-offs you create a whole new beast instead of killing the old one. In other word, you create a schism and, as we all know, the source for even more violence.

Nefastor

Edited by nefastor, 03 April 2008 - 11:00 PM.


#87 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 04 April 2008 - 12:09 AM

If anybody attacks me, being muslim or something else, I'll try to defend myself. Killing in self defense or in a just war is justified. WWII against the axis was a just war, Vietnam wasn't. By the way, the Vietnam conflict originated when the Vietnamese wanted independence from the French colonists.
Advocating the elimination of people, any people, is crazy, dangerous, immoral or worse. Thus, we have to look for more rational and moral solutions.

It's clear that the madrassas are factories of terrorists. This is because kids are being indoctrinated from books inciting them to kill other peoples. That's at the root of the problem. Take one of these kids and give him a different education and he wont grow up to be a terrorist.

I don't subscribe to any religion. It's not just that I don't believe in god. I don't think it's even useful to discuss whether god exists or not. I completely agree that the world would be much better without any religion. "Can you imagine a world without countries or religions?".

Karl Marx said religions are the opium of the people. He recommended cocaine (communism) instead. Billions of people are addicted and it's foolish to think they could quit cold turkey. That's why it makes much more sense to look for ways to get rid of the toxic parts of religions. Let the addicts have methadone instead of heroin.

Is it possible to extirpate toxic parts from a religion? It happened before. Polygamy was a very important part of the Mormon church. Actually Joseph Smith created that religion because he desired other wives besides the one he already had. But in order to be integrated into the US, Mormons abandoned polygamy in 1890.

Of course I understand that it'll be much more difficult to take the toxic elements out of islam in a way muslims will accept it. It has to happen before islamist get ahold of nuclear weapons.

#88 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 04 April 2008 - 01:18 AM

1-It's clear that one (may be the main) purpose of Wilders was to incite sentiments, and may be violence, against muslims. He would like to see muslim immigration to Holland restricted. Or even more extreme, to kick them out of the country. What right has anybody to decide who can and who cannot live in a given country?

Usually the citizens of the country, or more realistically their representatives or rulers, decide on immigration policy. I think that it's reasonable for a country to control immigration in order to maintain adequate control over the economy and prevent the destruction of the indigenous culture.

2-The movie was available for viewing at a website and was then taken out. This happened because the website owners received serious threats. This brings up again the issue of freedom of expression. Are we willing to accept that extremists group impose censorship by issuing threats?

Hmm. A hate film caused protests and threats. Since it's an anti-Muslim film, everyone is up in arms about the threats, instead of the film. If it was an anti-(your favorite victimhood brigade) film instead, how would you feel about it, or about someone taking steps to quash it?

3-In the movie real quotations from the Koran were presented. These suras call for the extermination of Christians, Jews and infidels in general. This is what Dan Dennett calls a toxic religion. At least it's the toxic part of that religion. In order to be able to live in a better world, it's imperative for toxic (parts of) religions to become extinct.

There is a lot of really creepy sh*t in the Bible. If you focus on that, you could make all Christians look pretty bad. Most Europeans and Americans seem to realize that there are "good" Christians and "bad" Christians, and they don't damn the whole religion on the basis of the bad ones. The important question is: What fraction of Muslims believe that killing Infidels is appropriate?

#89 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 04 April 2008 - 02:58 AM

Here is an excellent article on the core subject of this thread and debate from that bastion of left wing liberalism: the US News & World Report.

It is not so much about the movie as it is about the course this thread has taken at times.

Finding the Voices of Moderate Islam




A slightly earlier article by the same author with reference to a subject of the above article.


The Influence of a Moderate Muslim Cleric


#90 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:52 AM

..... from that bastion of left wing liberalism.....

Hmmm, it seems that it's very easy to revert to these kind of semantics. But isn't it evident that tribalism is the main cause of the issues that we are discussing in this thread? So what is to be gained by it?

I know it's very easy for me to express me in this manner to, but to dissect the issue into its bare elementary components does mean that we would be able to make a tiny step towards a possible solution. A solution of enormous proportion and complexity.

;)

Edited by brainbox, 04 April 2008 - 05:05 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users