|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science.
|
On September 19 2016 03:53 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. What the actual fuck ? That is absolutely not Jihad, that is not the Jihad that is in the Quran, that is not the Jihad that even my fucked up traditional Islamic schooling that was totally biased and full of BS even touted. You literally just picked up the first line of wikipedia which is totally unscourced. lololol. Jihad is literally Islams equivalent to the second ammendment. The entire Wiki article is quoted by a book by Lewis Bernard which is arguably the most garbage piece of writing on Islam you can find in english. And was a case study in my Rutgers courses on how to NOT cover Islamic history. If we are going to assume that to Muslims the Quran is the word of God, not even ambigously does the Quran suggest that you need to make war to "spread" Islam. Not once of the 199 times its mentioned is Jihad used in a context that says go fight people to convert them. I challenge you to find me something so I can then make you look stupid on a subject I am guaranteed to destroy you in. Now contemporary usage by terrorist organizations is a different story. So no the concept of making war and calling it Jihad has not existed since Islam existed. Islamic conquests were mostly a function of imperialism. Nothing to do with spreading religion. Ofcourse that doesnt mean cunts wont do it. But if you are referring to the foundation there is none. What 10-15 century Islam did was no different from any other empires that expanded. That it had some sort of foundation in scripture is nonsense. There is no foundation in the core religion that suggests that "spreading Islam through any kind of violence is Jihad." None. The term is purely defensive and meant as a last resort. If you ask even the most illiterate person on the street in a muslim country what Jihad is they will tell you it is a struggle (if neccessary militaristic) to protect ones right to practice their religion and fulfill their duty to god. Thats it. Bernard Lewis is a racist cunt who the Bush administration used for Middle Eastern Policy advice and a dinosaur scholar.
I never said Jihad had to be violent.
I'm well aware of what the term means, but it's fundamental purpose is to build a better Islamic world. Whether you want to associate it with "violence" or "internal struggle".
The point is to get closer to god, to serve god, what-have-you. As the whole point of being a Muslim is to serve your god, who very clearly wants Islam to be strong and powerful, I will not agree with any other rationalization besides:
Jihad's fundamental purpose is to keep the religion strong.
That's it, you put words into my mouth and assumed what I said.
|
On September 19 2016 04:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:53 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:On September 19 2016 01:49 Uldridge wrote:
So if religion is used as the medium to get people to commit to a certain lifestyle, isn't it a major factor?
Yes, the geopolitics of the West have made a very unstable region (don't forget the tribal wars in the Middle East though) and have a big hand in the origins of the radicalisation of alot of people, but that's not necessarily known by them. I'm pretty sure not every Islamite that goes on a suicide mission knows the entire Western - Middel-Eastern relationship to its most fundamental aspect, dating back to the start of the crusades or even further.
So, one could argue that the extreme interpreting of the Koran may be enough to identify the extremism we find in today's Islam at face value instead of completely understanding ourselves why it is the relationship has become so sour. Because blaming the Islam solves nothing. Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West. I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. What the actual fuck ? That is absolutely not Jihad, that is not the Jihad that is in the Quran, that is not the Jihad that even my fucked up traditional Islamic schooling that was totally biased and full of BS even touted. You literally just picked up the first line of wikipedia which is totally unscourced. lololol. Jihad is literally Islams equivalent to the second ammendment. The entire Wiki article is quoted by a book by Lewis Bernard which is arguably the most garbage piece of writing on Islam you can find in english. And was a case study in my Rutgers courses on how to NOT cover Islamic history. If we are going to assume that to Muslims the Quran is the word of God, not even ambigously does the Quran suggest that you need to make war to "spread" Islam. Not once of the 199 times its mentioned is Jihad used in a context that says go fight people to convert them. I challenge you to find me something so I can then make you look stupid on a subject I am guaranteed to destroy you in. Now contemporary usage by terrorist organizations is a different story. So no the concept of making war and calling it Jihad has not existed since Islam existed. Islamic conquests were mostly a function of imperialism. Nothing to do with spreading religion. Ofcourse that doesnt mean cunts wont do it. But if you are referring to the foundation there is none. What 10-15 century Islam did was no different from any other empires that expanded. That it had some sort of foundation in scripture is nonsense. There is no foundation in the core religion that suggests that "spreading Islam through any kind of violence is Jihad." None. The term is purely defensive and meant as a last resort. If you ask even the most illiterate person on the street in a muslim country what Jihad is they will tell you it is a struggle (if neccessary militaristic) to protect ones right to practice their religion and fulfill their duty to god. Thats it. Bernard Lewis is a racist cunt who the Bush administration used for Middle Eastern Policy advice and a dinosaur scholar. I never said Jihad had to be violent. I'm well aware of what the term means, but it's fundamental purpose is to build a better Islamic world. Whether you want to associate it with "violence" or "internal struggle". The point is to get closer to god, to serve god, what-have-you. As the whole point of being a Muslim is to serve your god, who very clearly wants Islam to be strong and powerful, I will not agree with any other rationalization besides: Jihad's fundamental purpose is to keep the religion strong. That's it, you put words into my mouth and assumed what I said.
You said Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. And did you did say that in some cases it can be violent, read your own post lol.
On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam.
It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful.
Your fundamental premise on how Jihad as ordered by scripture is to function is fundamentally incorrect.
So dont tell me what Jihad is please. Building a better world for Muslims is just Islam in general. Jihad is a very specific thing. Even the Sufi interpretation of the "internal struggle with oneself" although sounding nice, has no basis on Quranic text.
Jihads fundamental purpose as far as scripture is concerned is to protect ones rights to practice their religion. If you can find my a quranic verse and not some bullshit conservative quote machine from x scholar, that suggest that Jihad is supposed to keep the religion "strong" (whatever that means) then please do so and I will happily concede.
|
On September 19 2016 03:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:I was doing a more direct 1 vs 1 comparison to simplify things a bit. Also, unfortunately I'm not too concerned with Gary Johnson, as people will eventually choose their 2nd choice instead of going for their favorite. In 2012 Gary Johnson was polling between 4-6%, but only received 1% on election day, I'd be very surprised if he got more than 3%, realistically 1.5-2.5%. So for example, this is one of the most recent polls with demographics I could find (this poll is +1 for Trump, so it will be a bit in his favor compared to the usual poll): http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdfKeep in mind that so many will say someone else right now, but will vote for one of the two big parties come election day, so for example, here you see: -Trump is 54-33 with white people, 52-32 with men, and 52-38 for with women (page 22). So I would just scale those numbers up so that Hillary + Trump = 100, so for the first number multiply both by 100/81, and then subtract them for each other, and you'll have the twenty point lead come election day.
It does not come as a surprise that you've had to dig exactly the poll with the most critiziced methodology of the past months to support that idea. It could have been luck, but let's face it, it's far more likely that you had to discard quite a few before reaching the one poll where the overall race is close while Trump is crushing the white vote with 20+.
Among the entire sample, 28% described themselves as Democrats, 32% described themselves as Republicans, and 40% described themselves as independents or members of another party.
This electorate does not exist. Last election it was Democrat 38% Republican 32% Independent 29% and that's around what most polls use for sampling (with usually just making the gap between dem/rep smaller). I'm sure there will be some degree of change from 2012, but CNN's sampling after the methodology change is a wild guess that's incredibly unlikely to materialize.
On September 19 2016 03:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:
People love to talk about oh, all the people without college degrees like Trump, but first I'd like to point out that in almost every poll, it shows that wealthier people like Trump more, so the trend that smarter people support Hillary isn't particularly true. Now back to college degrees, yes, people with college degrees are more likely to support Hillary, and apologies for being misinformed, this says that 49-35 for Hillary with White college grads support Hillary, I must've read male college grads, and Trump was winning that by a couple percentage points in a poll in the past. Anyway, maybe it's a bigger statement to the quality of education (and liberal brainwashing from my university experiences), than about the intelligence when looking at these two combined.
Of course people in the highest income bracket support Trump when he says he'll cut their taxes. You are willing to consider all the nuance possible to remove the intelligence aspect from the white with college degrees demographic voting Hillary (brainwashing??) but not the obvious benefit of the wealthy voting Trump?
|
On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science.
Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about).
However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative.
This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world.
|
On September 19 2016 04:15 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:I was doing a more direct 1 vs 1 comparison to simplify things a bit. Also, unfortunately I'm not too concerned with Gary Johnson, as people will eventually choose their 2nd choice instead of going for their favorite. In 2012 Gary Johnson was polling between 4-6%, but only received 1% on election day, I'd be very surprised if he got more than 3%, realistically 1.5-2.5%. So for example, this is one of the most recent polls with demographics I could find (this poll is +1 for Trump, so it will be a bit in his favor compared to the usual poll): http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdfKeep in mind that so many will say someone else right now, but will vote for one of the two big parties come election day, so for example, here you see: -Trump is 54-33 with white people, 52-32 with men, and 52-38 for with women (page 22). So I would just scale those numbers up so that Hillary + Trump = 100, so for the first number multiply both by 100/81, and then subtract them for each other, and you'll have the twenty point lead come election day. It does not come as a surprise that you've had to dig exactly the poll with the most critiziced methodology of the past months to support that idea. It could have been luck, but let's face it, it's far more likely that you had to discard quite a few before reaching the one poll where the overall race is close while Trump is crushing the white vote with 20+. Show nested quote +Among the entire sample, 28% described themselves as Democrats, 32% described themselves as Republicans, and 40% described themselves as independents or members of another party. This electorate does not exist. Last election it was Democrat 38% Republican 32% Independent 29% and that's around what most polls use for sampling (with usually just making the gap between dem/rep smaller). I'm sure there will be some degree of change from 2012, but CNN's sampling after the methodology change is a wild guess that's incredibly unlikely to materialize. Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:27 FiWiFaKi wrote:
People love to talk about oh, all the people without college degrees like Trump, but first I'd like to point out that in almost every poll, it shows that wealthier people like Trump more, so the trend that smarter people support Hillary isn't particularly true. Now back to college degrees, yes, people with college degrees are more likely to support Hillary, and apologies for being misinformed, this says that 49-35 for Hillary with White college grads support Hillary, I must've read male college grads, and Trump was winning that by a couple percentage points in a poll in the past. Anyway, maybe it's a bigger statement to the quality of education (and liberal brainwashing from my university experiences), than about the intelligence when looking at these two combined. Of course people in the highest income bracket support Trump when he says he'll cut their taxes. You are willing to consider all the nuance possible to remove the intelligence aspect from the white with college degrees demographic voting Hillary (brainwashing??) but not the obvious benefit of the wealthy voting Trump?
I actually just went realclearpolitics, and went through all the polls in order from newest to oldest, until one sorted it by demographics, thanks for assuming though.
I'm not going to say much, as I feel your post is more an attack on me, for what I meant to be a rather more objective post (I even said this poll is a bit Trump favored for example). So the only thing I'll comment on is that there isn't a high enough percentage of rich people that isn't still middle class that it wouldn't skew those numbers significantly. To me it says working class Americans that work jobs paying 50% or more of minimum wage prefer Trump to Hillary.
|
On September 19 2016 04:09 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:53 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 02:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Because blaming the Islam solves nothing.
Yelling 'Islamic terrorism' isn't going to stop the terrorists from attacking and will only piss off the Islamic people that are not against the West.
I'm not saying we should ignore the violence or that we shouldn't seek to protect ourselves but to me there is no reason to focus on the Islam so hard instead of just Terrorism. Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others. Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way. The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can. Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell. Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that. A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. What the actual fuck ? That is absolutely not Jihad, that is not the Jihad that is in the Quran, that is not the Jihad that even my fucked up traditional Islamic schooling that was totally biased and full of BS even touted. You literally just picked up the first line of wikipedia which is totally unscourced. lololol. Jihad is literally Islams equivalent to the second ammendment. The entire Wiki article is quoted by a book by Lewis Bernard which is arguably the most garbage piece of writing on Islam you can find in english. And was a case study in my Rutgers courses on how to NOT cover Islamic history. If we are going to assume that to Muslims the Quran is the word of God, not even ambigously does the Quran suggest that you need to make war to "spread" Islam. Not once of the 199 times its mentioned is Jihad used in a context that says go fight people to convert them. I challenge you to find me something so I can then make you look stupid on a subject I am guaranteed to destroy you in. Now contemporary usage by terrorist organizations is a different story. So no the concept of making war and calling it Jihad has not existed since Islam existed. Islamic conquests were mostly a function of imperialism. Nothing to do with spreading religion. Ofcourse that doesnt mean cunts wont do it. But if you are referring to the foundation there is none. What 10-15 century Islam did was no different from any other empires that expanded. That it had some sort of foundation in scripture is nonsense. There is no foundation in the core religion that suggests that "spreading Islam through any kind of violence is Jihad." None. The term is purely defensive and meant as a last resort. If you ask even the most illiterate person on the street in a muslim country what Jihad is they will tell you it is a struggle (if neccessary militaristic) to protect ones right to practice their religion and fulfill their duty to god. Thats it. Bernard Lewis is a racist cunt who the Bush administration used for Middle Eastern Policy advice and a dinosaur scholar. I never said Jihad had to be violent. I'm well aware of what the term means, but it's fundamental purpose is to build a better Islamic world. Whether you want to associate it with "violence" or "internal struggle". The point is to get closer to god, to serve god, what-have-you. As the whole point of being a Muslim is to serve your god, who very clearly wants Islam to be strong and powerful, I will not agree with any other rationalization besides: Jihad's fundamental purpose is to keep the religion strong. That's it, you put words into my mouth and assumed what I said. You said Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. And did you did say that in some cases it can be violent, read your own post lol. Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam.
It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. Your fundamental premise on how Jihad as ordered by scripture is to function is fundamentally incorrect. So dont tell me what Jihad is please. Building a better world for Muslims is just Islam in general. Jihad is a very specific thing. Even the Sufi interpretation of the "internal struggle with oneself" although sounding nice, has no basis on Quranic text. Jihads fundamental purpose as far as scripture is concerned is to protect ones rights to practice their religion. If you can find my a quranic verse and not some bullshit conservative quote machine from x scholar, that suggest that Jihad is supposed to keep the religion "strong" (whatever that means) then please do so and I will happily concede.
Yes, I never said it's all violent though, like I said, a certain percentage has always been violent - whether it's between their own people or others (that's more infrequent). Maybe "spread" wasn't the right word, but I meant something similar, "keep it strong", "see it prosper", "make it respected", etc... Without Jihad, Islam would die out (or decline significantly).
Fact remains is that if my society of Christian, and I don't want some external influences changing my way of life to significant extents, then Jihad is undesirable to have in my country, and hence bad.
I'm not a researched scholar on this subject, but I have looked at it more in the past than the average person, and while we might have a different argument for what it is meant to do (yes, we can use the religion of peace argument and how it's meant to be used for good), its outcome is one we can hopefully agree on, and the outcome I would have thought is fairly universally known.
|
On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world.
so people who live by reason and evidence are liberals? I guess that explains "reality has a liberal bias" :D
|
On September 19 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world. so people who live by reason and evidence are liberals? I guess that explains "reality has a liberal bias" :D
I hope I was reasonably clear to say that these are the main pillars.
My entire argument that I've made for my last few posts was that these fundamental pillars are lacking (at least imo, and hence why from a philosophical standpoint why I disagree with the modern liberal movement) when it comes to explaining the reason for why we live, or other philosophical questions. They are great tools to building car engines, buildings, chemical processes, transistors, etc... But not good tools to understand the thinking and emotions of people, modelling the very fabric of our society (like what should the role of the government be, to what extent should we accept technology into our worlds, what rights should people), and all the fundamentals about the human experience. Once we get into the details and specifics, it's excellent.
That's where I'm all for modelling a system of partial differential equations to explain the governing dynamics of whatever process, the study riemann manifolds to define new geometric notations, etc. It explains why the liberal parts of the country are usually wealthier. But anyway, that's all I have to say, conservatives better understand their own philosophies, or at least are more concrete. My opinion is that to live a happy life you need to believe in something.
|
Norway28667 Posts
On September 19 2016 02:31 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 02:23 Uldridge wrote:Have you actually seen numbers of Islamic demographics supporting suicide bombing and other forms of terrorism? It's pretty scary dude.. The religion as a medium is heavily intertwined with everything they do. Solely blaming Islam is the same thing is blaming heroin for being so addictive for someone being addicted to it. It's dumb and shortsighted. However, it is a big parameter in the whole equation and if you deny that, you're just as shortsighted imo. Don't underestimate the way a medium like religion, and Islam in particular, can inspire, indoctrinate and bring people together for a mutual malvolent cause. This is a video of an Afghan women being publicly killed on the streets for allegedly burning a Quran. I don't want to generalize here, but it's pretty disturbing how "non extremist" muslims are so devout to their religion. I just don't think you understand what an impact this religion has on people when you're living in a secular state and has those roots at the end of the 19th century. There's just no comparison. There was a survey and it showed on average about 20% of the islamic population thought suicide bombing wasn't a problem or actively supported it. That is a huge number, and then you have the "moderates" who would actively resort to violence if you display any sort of anti islamic rhetoric publicly. Buddhism might be a religion of peace, but islam ain't, even if you look at it in aggregate.
More than 20% of the american population is so hungry for blood that their reflexive response to being asked about bombing a fictional city with an arab sounding name is 'yes, we should do that'. Bombs are no better than suicide bombs, if anything they cause far more terror and destruction.
|
On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world.
I mostly see liberal/conservatives basically being the same at the core (in that they are made up of flawed individuals). So both sides pretty much have their crazies, their bad ideas, their poorly executed ideas etc. Where they differ is in what roles the government should play, the current state of society, and relative willingness to change society and things of that nature. It becomes a cluster fuck because not everyone agrees even within their own group let alone between them.
The problem today seems as if everyone is just gripping their ideology tighter and to gain political advantage are allying themselves with those who hold the more extreme positions on their side because they need the numbers to win. This is how the more extremest positions on both sides stay alive in relevant, because they are loud and active and the moderates won't cast them aside and potentially lose it all and this effects politicians who have an especially vested interest in gaining as many supporters as possible. So now we have two sides growing farther apart who just look to please "their side" so compromise is difficult except on a few things that both sides see as safe.
|
On September 19 2016 04:38 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world. so people who live by reason and evidence are liberals? I guess that explains "reality has a liberal bias" :D I hope I was reasonably clear to say that these are the main pillars. My entire argument that I've made for my last few posts was that these fundamental pillars are lacking (at least imo, and hence why from a philosophical standpoint why I disagree with the modern liberal movement) when it comes to explaining the reason for why we live, or other philosophical questions. They are great tools to building car engines, buildings, chemical processes, transistors, etc... But not good tools to understand the thinking and emotions of people, modelling the very fabric of our society (like what should the role of the government be, to what extent should we accept technology into our worlds, what rights should people), and all the fundamentals about the human experience. Once we get into the details and specifics, it's excellent.
actually, used properly (which many don't) they totally ARE good tools for looking at philosophical questions, as well as a lot of other practical questions. They are of course tools, not ways of life; but very powerful ones. To claim otherwise is a result of either: looking at fools who aren't actually using those tools, or are using them incorrectly, or not understanding the them properly.
science, evidence, and reason, are awesomely powerful.
|
On September 19 2016 04:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:09 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 04:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:53 Rebs wrote:On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 03:38 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 03:18 oBlade wrote:On September 19 2016 02:53 TheDwf wrote:On September 19 2016 02:27 Yuljan wrote:On September 19 2016 02:11 Rebs wrote:
[quote]
Dont bother explaining this, no one will listen if they dont already feel this way. Its easy to acknowledge that Islam in of itself requires reform, but Islam varies quite significantly in practice and preaching across the board. Thats when I laugh when people say "Shariah Law" like its a homogeneous thing. There is no such thing is 1 Shariah Law. Theres 4 major schools of just Sunni Islam itself and then the offshoots, let alone all the minority strains and alot of them have very very different beliefs to the point that they hate each other just as much as they might hate others.
Islam has problems, plenty of them. But what people dont realise is that they can remove Islam from the equation and these people would latch onto whatever would have existed in the vaccum Islam left and found justification for their actions either way.
The Saudis for example are absolute cunts. They are the most vile regressive human beings in existance that have any legitimacy and they have the money to export that filth to poorer muslim countries unchecked, because well, they can.
Sadly now its to late, the Saudi project has been like 40-60 years in the making, undoing that and reforming mainstream Islam (even if there was any will to do so in the first place) would take decades aswell.
Its also hilarious that people have a problem with blaming guns for violence but have no problem with blaming religion for it. Its literally the same line of thinking. Except you cant kill someone with just an ideology, you have to add a gun to that.
A backward stone age religion helps these idiots just as a gun helps you if you want to do violence. I am absolutely opposed to allow guns in a country but I would rather expel all muslims (incl. the decent ones) from my country than allow the 30~40% of them that are in favor of radical islams to continue their ways. So to sum it up: a gun ban and muslim ban create a more peaceful society in my opinion. We all heard about the different interpretations of sharia law: Should you hit your wife hard or soft? Should a homosexual be stoned or beheaded? Can you just behead prisoners or is burning fine as well? Islams problem is that its a religion of conquest and the koran is considered the direct word of god. Then how come there are so many schools, branches and sub-branches which are constantly fighting each other? Was Allah too ambiguous in its message or?... The only option to stop radical islam is to supress all of islam as harshly as possible (i.e. forbid preaching, close all mosques and dont allow any public display of muslim faith) in the west. Sure, persecuting minorities never went wrong. Plus freedom of conscience doesn't exist, and amputating the whole arm whenever your finger itches is a brilliant solution. Oh by the way, if extremism is inherent to islam, then how come it particularly developed those past decades? If the reason behind all of this is the letter of the Quran, we should find this problem at every age and everywhere. It so happens that we don't. How come? We do find it in history, and all over the world today. Or are you asking why there were no suicide vests in the 15th century? What is called jihadism dates back to the 1980s. Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. What the actual fuck ? That is absolutely not Jihad, that is not the Jihad that is in the Quran, that is not the Jihad that even my fucked up traditional Islamic schooling that was totally biased and full of BS even touted. You literally just picked up the first line of wikipedia which is totally unscourced. lololol. Jihad is literally Islams equivalent to the second ammendment. The entire Wiki article is quoted by a book by Lewis Bernard which is arguably the most garbage piece of writing on Islam you can find in english. And was a case study in my Rutgers courses on how to NOT cover Islamic history. If we are going to assume that to Muslims the Quran is the word of God, not even ambigously does the Quran suggest that you need to make war to "spread" Islam. Not once of the 199 times its mentioned is Jihad used in a context that says go fight people to convert them. I challenge you to find me something so I can then make you look stupid on a subject I am guaranteed to destroy you in. Now contemporary usage by terrorist organizations is a different story. So no the concept of making war and calling it Jihad has not existed since Islam existed. Islamic conquests were mostly a function of imperialism. Nothing to do with spreading religion. Ofcourse that doesnt mean cunts wont do it. But if you are referring to the foundation there is none. What 10-15 century Islam did was no different from any other empires that expanded. That it had some sort of foundation in scripture is nonsense. There is no foundation in the core religion that suggests that "spreading Islam through any kind of violence is Jihad." None. The term is purely defensive and meant as a last resort. If you ask even the most illiterate person on the street in a muslim country what Jihad is they will tell you it is a struggle (if neccessary militaristic) to protect ones right to practice their religion and fulfill their duty to god. Thats it. Bernard Lewis is a racist cunt who the Bush administration used for Middle Eastern Policy advice and a dinosaur scholar. I never said Jihad had to be violent. I'm well aware of what the term means, but it's fundamental purpose is to build a better Islamic world. Whether you want to associate it with "violence" or "internal struggle". The point is to get closer to god, to serve god, what-have-you. As the whole point of being a Muslim is to serve your god, who very clearly wants Islam to be strong and powerful, I will not agree with any other rationalization besides: Jihad's fundamental purpose is to keep the religion strong. That's it, you put words into my mouth and assumed what I said. You said Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam. And did you did say that in some cases it can be violent, read your own post lol. On September 19 2016 03:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Jihad is the religious duty to spread Islam.
It's been around for as long as Islam existed, and why it would ever be welcome in a non-Islamic country is beyond me. It takes different forms, and while we haven't had people blowing themselves up until more recently, it has always been something that is unwanted, and always something that at least a certain percentage wasn't peaceful. Your fundamental premise on how Jihad as ordered by scripture is to function is fundamentally incorrect. So dont tell me what Jihad is please. Building a better world for Muslims is just Islam in general. Jihad is a very specific thing. Even the Sufi interpretation of the "internal struggle with oneself" although sounding nice, has no basis on Quranic text. Jihads fundamental purpose as far as scripture is concerned is to protect ones rights to practice their religion. If you can find my a quranic verse and not some bullshit conservative quote machine from x scholar, that suggest that Jihad is supposed to keep the religion "strong" (whatever that means) then please do so and I will happily concede. Yes, I never said it's all violent though, like I said, a certain percentage has always been violent - whether it's between their own people or others (that's more infrequent). Maybe "spread" wasn't the right word, but I meant something similar, "keep it strong", "see it prosper", "make it respected", etc... Without Jihad, Islam would die out (or decline significantly). Fact remains is that if my society of Christian, and I don't want some external influences changing my way of life to significant extents, then Jihad is undesirable to have in my country, and hence bad. I'm not a researched scholar on this subject, but I have looked at it more in the past than the average person, and while we might have a different argument for what it is meant to do (yes, we can use the religion of peace argument and how it's meant to be used for good), its outcome is one we can hopefully agree on, and the outcome I would have thought is fairly universally known.
All of your statements are assumptions. Firstly there is no Jihad between Muslims. I dont know how that even makes sense to the twisted argument that comes up against it. Again let me spell it out for you.
Find me something the scripture says (because again the premise for the religion is that the Quran is the word of God, the rest is people. People are not infallible and therefore can be wrong) and not what the fucking house of Saud says or what Bernard Lewis suggests
There is no different argument of what it is meant to do. There is only one thing it was meant to do "since Islam existed" as per your original post.
And if your society is christian and there is an influence that is changing it, thats not Jihad lol. Thats just influence. You can call it Jihad, you can call it "OH FUCK MY LIFE IS CHANGING WHAT TO DO?" but thats you calling it that. Thats not what it is.
I can call you a racist nationalists because we might have a difference on what it means to be a racist nationalist but I would be wrong. Thats the kind of wishy washy argument you are presenting her.
Or we could have different thougts on what 2+2 is but that means one of us is wrong. Or both of us are wrong. In this case
My answer is 4.
Its all very ho hum, because your knowledge on this subject is clearly "googled shit with a confirmation bias."
Again, to address potential strawmen from wherever they might pop up. Islam has plenty of problems, so many of them. But you should not impose your uninformed opinion on a religion or its pracitices by attaching your poorly researched label to something it holds sacred because someone else is abusing it. Thats alienating any chance to coexist peacefully.
Jihad is literally a combination of ammendment 1 and 2. Ever noticed how people find plenty of excuses to abuse both of those ammendments ? Yeah. I guess we should get rid of them.
|
On September 19 2016 04:46 Rebs wrote:
Thats alienating any chance to coexist peacefully.
Sadly, there are too many people on both sides who gave up that idea long ago.
|
On September 19 2016 04:50 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:46 Rebs wrote:
Thats alienating any chance to coexist peacefully.
Sadly, there are too many people on both sides who gave up that idea long ago.
Thats why I moved to Canada. Havent met any of those people here.
Although to be fair the 10 years I spent in the US were all in the liberal bubbles of the northeast and the northwest so I have minimal complaints if any.
|
On September 19 2016 04:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:38 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world. so people who live by reason and evidence are liberals? I guess that explains "reality has a liberal bias" :D I hope I was reasonably clear to say that these are the main pillars. My entire argument that I've made for my last few posts was that these fundamental pillars are lacking (at least imo, and hence why from a philosophical standpoint why I disagree with the modern liberal movement) when it comes to explaining the reason for why we live, or other philosophical questions. They are great tools to building car engines, buildings, chemical processes, transistors, etc... But not good tools to understand the thinking and emotions of people, modelling the very fabric of our society (like what should the role of the government be, to what extent should we accept technology into our worlds, what rights should people), and all the fundamentals about the human experience. Once we get into the details and specifics, it's excellent. actually, used properly (which many don't) they totally ARE good tools for looking at philosophical questions. They are of course tools, not ways of life; but very powerful ones. To claim otherwise is a result of either: looking at fools who aren't actually using those tools, or are using them incorrectly, or not understanding the them properly. science, evidence, and reason, are awesomely powerful.
You say some nice things, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but my terminology isn't precise enough for these kinds of conversations, especially since I haven't done much reading on this myself. We're also getting pretty far off topic hah.
Like I agree with you, you want to observe some things about the world before you decide how it should be, but I dunno, I don't think you'll come with an answer of: "because of this and that, and because of this rational conclusion supported by this, I will live my life like that". I mean you're free to do that, but I don't think it's the right way to live, the things you base your underlying assumptions are just things passed down, your gut feeling, what you feel is right, etc... Then you rationalize it all from there. Anyway, difficult conversation that will be tough to continue.
It's a confusing topic, once I tried to draw a philosophy tree, and I stopped once I had like 50 interconnected feedback loops with everything, because everything impacts everything, and it just gets weird. Like actually sitting down and writing out why you think the things you do, and you just try to go deeper and deeper, and keep giving a more and more objective rationalization that is less tied to the human experience gets really difficult, at least it was for me.
On September 19 2016 05:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:46 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 04:38 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world. so people who live by reason and evidence are liberals? I guess that explains "reality has a liberal bias" :D I hope I was reasonably clear to say that these are the main pillars. My entire argument that I've made for my last few posts was that these fundamental pillars are lacking (at least imo, and hence why from a philosophical standpoint why I disagree with the modern liberal movement) when it comes to explaining the reason for why we live, or other philosophical questions. They are great tools to building car engines, buildings, chemical processes, transistors, etc... But not good tools to understand the thinking and emotions of people, modelling the very fabric of our society (like what should the role of the government be, to what extent should we accept technology into our worlds, what rights should people), and all the fundamentals about the human experience. Once we get into the details and specifics, it's excellent. actually, used properly (which many don't) they totally ARE good tools for looking at philosophical questions. They are of course tools, not ways of life; but very powerful ones. To claim otherwise is a result of either: looking at fools who aren't actually using those tools, or are using them incorrectly, or not understanding the them properly. science, evidence, and reason, are awesomely powerful. You say some nice things, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but my terminology isn't precise enough for these kinds of conversations, especially since I haven't done much reading on this myself. We're also getting pretty far off topic hah. Like I agree with you, you want to observe some things about the world before you decide how it should be, but I dunno, I don't think you'll come with an answer of: "because of this and that, and because of this rational conclusion supported by this, I will live my life like that". I mean you're free to do that, but I don't think it's the right way to live, the things you base your underlying assumptions are just things passed down, your gut feeling, what you feel is right, etc... Then you rationalize it all from there. Anyway, difficult conversation that will be tough to continue. all underlying assumptions would be based on careful inductive observations, and be subject to review/change if they don't hold up. It needn't rely on gut feelings or what's passed down, but that's usually a decent place to start. I agree though that you may not have the formal training to really do that kind of conversation. I disagree on it being off-topic though.
I think it's too much impact on too many factors for a human brain to comprehend. It's one of those things that in theory, sure maybe - in reality, no... Or at least it's not practical for most people to do it, and the "right" way of life for these people is how these people felt was right, which would be what was passed down, gut feeling, etc.
|
On September 19 2016 04:57 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2016 04:46 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 04:38 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:31 zlefin wrote:On September 19 2016 04:18 FiWiFaKi wrote:On September 19 2016 04:06 zlefin wrote:
fiwi ->
I'm unsure about what you're trying to say with this remark:
"And again, I love science, evidence, and reason... But when you base all your ideas of the world on them, that's kind of what it means to be liberal in my opinion."
it just doesn't track at all with my understanding of the definition of liberalism or science. Someone whose philosophy stems from those three principles, will almost undoubtedly be a liberal. The converse of course isn't true. (sorry, not a philosopher in academics, just something I enjoy thinking about). However if you take the view of spirituality/religion, the view of "this is how the world should be", instead of trying to rationalize what it should be (we've tried)... Or rationalize it yourself based on some underlying assumptions, and treat science, evidence, and reason only as tools, and not principles to live by, you're more often going to be a conservative. This is just based on my observations and my rationalizations, so I'm not saying this is a fact, only that it's how I observe the world. so people who live by reason and evidence are liberals? I guess that explains "reality has a liberal bias" :D I hope I was reasonably clear to say that these are the main pillars. My entire argument that I've made for my last few posts was that these fundamental pillars are lacking (at least imo, and hence why from a philosophical standpoint why I disagree with the modern liberal movement) when it comes to explaining the reason for why we live, or other philosophical questions. They are great tools to building car engines, buildings, chemical processes, transistors, etc... But not good tools to understand the thinking and emotions of people, modelling the very fabric of our society (like what should the role of the government be, to what extent should we accept technology into our worlds, what rights should people), and all the fundamentals about the human experience. Once we get into the details and specifics, it's excellent. actually, used properly (which many don't) they totally ARE good tools for looking at philosophical questions. They are of course tools, not ways of life; but very powerful ones. To claim otherwise is a result of either: looking at fools who aren't actually using those tools, or are using them incorrectly, or not understanding the them properly. science, evidence, and reason, are awesomely powerful. You say some nice things, and I agree with a lot of what you say, but my terminology isn't precise enough for these kinds of conversations, especially since I haven't done much reading on this myself. We're also getting pretty far off topic hah. Like I agree with you, you want to observe some things about the world before you decide how it should be, but I dunno, I don't think you'll come with an answer of: "because of this and that, and because of this rational conclusion supported by this, I will live my life like that". I mean you're free to do that, but I don't think it's the right way to live, the things you base your underlying assumptions are just things passed down, your gut feeling, what you feel is right, etc... Then you rationalize it all from there. Anyway, difficult conversation that will be tough to continue.
all underlying assumptions would be based on careful inductive observations, and be subject to review/change if they don't hold up.
It needn't rely on gut feelings or what's passed down, but that's usually a decent place to start.
I agree though that you may not have the formal training to really do that kind of conversation. I disagree on it being off-topic though.
you added a paragraph after I replied; yes, it can get quite complicated; though there's a fair number of plausible starting points. mostly you'd want to study ethical philosophy and basic logic more to get better grounding.
PS pls stop edit adding paragraphs after I've responded, you just added another one!
and most people don't have the training or talent for making up ethical systems, which is why you can use ones derived by others; including ones derived from reason and evidence. You don't have to do all the work yourself.
|
The extent of my formal knowledge training is (read that whole book word for word):
https://www.amazon.com/Canadian-Professional-Engineering-Geoscience-Paperback/dp/0176509909
and a course on:
"A case study analysis of the practice of science as a human activity. The theories linking the emergence of modern science to western culture are considered. An analysis of ideas of the social structure of scientific activity including: the role of examples in forming scientific theories, the value system of scientists in both basic research and applied research environments, "individual genius" vs multiple discovery, and the influence of "leading" figures. The linkages of scientific activity with other cultural dimensions are explored and the bases for formulation of "science policy" are considered."
I wasn't captivated enough in the topics, we discussed the four popular ethical systems...
I was the say it was the virtue ethics (Plato or Aristotle?), locke's rights ethics, Kant ethics, and Mill's Utilitarianism.
In my eyes they are use different assumptions that have no merit in absolute terms... And even when we discussed professional ethics, it's like oh, consider this ethic, oh this doesn't look socially acceptable, so use a different ethos instead.
They weren't philosophy courses, but man, the way they taught it, and the people around me, bleh.... Not a fan. You get a different answer depending on depth your argument gets to, and you can go to an infinite depth or until you reach the conclusion that nothing has any meaning, and you say fuck it. I spent quite some time and discussions on this, and it didn't lead to anything.
If someone like me can't reach a result with significant time investment and genuine interest, I definitely don't think the majority of the public will either. And blindly following an ethos to me is like blindly following a religion... It's meaningless if you don't justify it to yourself, which makes it even more screwed up, because then it makes no sense to pursue the interests of your philosophy for anything else but your self interest.
|
|
|
Welcome to politics.
Nothing to see here.
+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI
+ Show Spoiler +Just needs that wonderful circus music you have going on in the background
|
|
|
|
|
|
16499
3196
337
297
191
EPT
