|
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. |
On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened.
Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit.
|
On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit.
No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. Your raw emotion need to have your world view confirmed is not something you should want rewarded. That is a thing I actively avoid wishing for because it is generally the worst part of my personality.
|
On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are.
When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc phrase for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol.
|
e: nevermind I shouldn't post when sleep deprived
|
On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol.
Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess.
|
On May 24 2017 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol. Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess.
Show me one instance where the media used the phrase "act of terror" where it wasn't for radical islam and I will take it back. I don't know how europeans use these phrases, speaking for american media
|
This line of reasoning...On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:
I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful...So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted. In a step by step basis:
1) Religion is not a polite fiction.
2) A supreme being did not discover new moral truths over the past thousand years.
3) It isn't reasonable to change laws according to changing morals.
4) As Christians beleive homosexual acts are sinful, that beleive must take precedence in a secular society
5) Only religion can determine what is morally right, not secular society.
6) Religious freedom should not be compromised by secular law.
7) Something about Mohdoo.
I have to say, that's quite the absurd position to take.
|
On May 24 2017 06:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol. Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess. Show me one instance where the media used the phrase "act of terror" where it wasn't for radical islam and I will take it back. I don't know how europeans use these phrases, speaking for american media
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Anders Behring Breivik act of terror
Take it back. Now. Please.
|
On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:On May 23 2017 11:35 biology]major wrote:
I hope sooner or later people will be able to overcome the pc labels and just use the terms radical islamism. It is time to just be honest and truthful rather than using vague terminology to avoid harming a minority group's feelings. I see this trend changing now, ever since trump it is actually being used more commonly. Just saw fareed zakaria say radical islamism/jihadism lol Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc phrase for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol.
Expect for the 1920 when the terrorist were communists. Or the 1970s when they were the KKK and other white extremist groups. Or in the UK for like a bunch of their history when it was the IRA. Or US in the 1700s when we murdered and killed so many Tory’s that the Britain decided to kick our ass, but then we won.
But you are 100% correct if we discount all other terrorist ever throughout history. Then it is all PC culture keeping don’t the real speakers like yourself, telling the truth to the world.
On May 24 2017 06:42 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:40 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol. Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess. Show me one instance where the media used the phrase "act of terror" where it wasn't for radical islam and I will take it back. I don't know how europeans use these phrases, speaking for american media http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Anders Behring Breivik act of terrorTake it back. Now. Please.
Literally one of the greatest public services on the internet.
|
On May 24 2017 06:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol. Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess. Show me one instance where the media used the phrase "act of terror" where it wasn't for radical islam and I will take it back. I don't know how europeans use these phrases, speaking for american media
IRA and Front de Liberation du Quebec attacks have been called "acts of terror". Hard to distinguish if they were called such pre or post 9/11, but it looks like some references are at least pre-2000.
|
On May 24 2017 06:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol. Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess. Show me one instance where the media used the phrase "act of terror" where it wasn't for radical islam and I will take it back. I don't know how europeans use these phrases, speaking for american media
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/tracing-roots-americas-biggest-domestic-terror-attack/
Here you go.
Tracing the roots of the America’s biggest domestic terror attack
The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing was the largest act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history. A new documentary on the PBS series American Experience takes a fresh look at the events and motivations that led to the attack by Timothy McVeigh, and finds resonance for today.
|
On May 24 2017 06:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 05:25 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 04:09 Danglars wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society." There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. I know most of what you allege is easy to argue if you assume religion is a polite fiction to bind societies together. But if you instead actually believe it was established by a supreme being that didn't spend the last thousand years discovering new moral truths, none of that follows. And frankly it isn't reasonable from that premise to change beliefs on majority opinion shifting. Now, a deep and nuanced debate was hashed out in times past on how to get along in a secular society where Christians would still believe an act was sinful, but that anti-sodomy laws arent proper for broad civil society. Then we shifted to how marriage laws are a matter for the courts and not the legislatures. I can think of no better ground for understanding the topics at play than the opinion and dissents in the Obergefell decision ... I wager any full and fair reading would improve the rank ignorance contained in focusing on how "homosexual sex does not harm society." We shortcutted a huge experiment in whether or not a radical departure from tradition in marriage laws actually is good or bad for society in the long term. And, yes, homosexual sex would still be ongoing in this time. So we're crossing the cords of who determines what is morally right, and how a free society can come to compromises in law for secular society, all in service of a blind view that what Mohdoo thinks is sufficient evidence and insufficient reasoning ought to be adopted. Can you clarify what you are saying here? It feels like we are drifting really far away from what I originally asked you: Why is homosexual sex unethical? The same thing I originally said. It's marriage, laws, and society that my opposition rests. If two men or two women want to have sex in their own bedroom, I'm not favoring a law that outlaws it and I'm not discounting that my religion calls it a sin (and as previously outlined, for no patently ridiculous reason).
First of all, sorry for being rude earlier. I'll try not to be rude anymore.
Second, are you saying your belief that homosexual sex is unethical is grounded in all of those three things individually? Meaning there is a marriage component (are you saying you believe sex should be reserved for marriage), a legal component, and a societal component?
If you are saying pre-marital sex is unethical on its own, it makes sense why 2 dudes would be bad if you also believe 2 dudes shouldn't be married. I understand that the bible defines marriage as 1 man 1 woman, but is that why you also see it as bad for society? When 2 men are in a committed, long term relationship in all the same ways an identical hetero couple are, is the societal component still present? Is there a unique societal contribution specific to same sex, committed sex?
|
On May 24 2017 06:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:38 Gorsameth wrote:On May 24 2017 06:36 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:34 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:32 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:28 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:22 biology]major wrote:On May 24 2017 06:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2017 06:05 biology]major wrote:On May 23 2017 22:47 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Islam is as central to ISIS as being white dudes is to the Nazis but nobody insists that every time we talk about the Nazis we call them white Europeans and allude that their being white Europeans is possibly what caused it. And nor should they, most of the Nazis' victims were white Europeans and most of the people who ended up destroying the Nazi regime were white Europeans. Tarring both sides with the same brush would be dumb and spit on the memory of those who died resisting. This is the same. The majority of the people fighting radical Islam are Muslims. The majority of the victims of radical Islam are Muslims. this is the dumbest thing you have posted on this board kwark. We call those people white supremacists/nationalists, we have an accurate label in that situation, and it includes the term "white". That ideology does not have an accepted "moderate" view really, so there is no need to include the word "radical" white supremacist. Now whenever we have people strapping bombs on themselves/children, burning/drowning people in cages, and bombing soft targets to inspire fear with a explicitly stated motive relating to islam, you think it's accurate to call that "an act of terror" rather than an act by a radical/extreme islamist? What if I told you “radical Islam” was a shitty label and people should find a better one? You know there is a difference between Islamic and Islamist, right? They are two different terms to describe different things. One is general term for all things dealing with Islam, the other is specifically political and has more to do with a nation and political acts within it. Even that description I provided is pretty lacking. This is the problem with your request. You think you are accurate, but you’re just ignorant of the real context for the words you are using. Even though people in this thread have attempted to tell you over and over why what you want isn’t a good idea and is an inaccurate way to talk about Islamic terrorism. You have this base emotional need for people to talk about it in terms that please you and force people to address it the way YOU see fit and you simply ignore all the reasons why what you want is bad. find whatever word you want, just make sure it references islam in someway, since that is a critical component of their ideology. I don't care if it's extreme/radical/perverse/moronic ISLAM People have said Islamic terrorist. The terrorist was Islamic and the people who took credit claim to be an Islamic group. What you are asking for has already happened. Not in mainstream, it is almost always an "act of terror". Only recently am I seeing Radical Islam/islamic terrorist floating around in the mainstream, and hopefully it continues. Even muslims want to see accurate terms be used, not vague bullshit. No shit, the attack happened 24 hours ago. You don’t get to bitch about the quality of the media and then complain when they don’t jump to conclusions or get fully sensational. They will talk about the facts when the UK provides them and then call them whatever flavor of terrorist they are. When the media says "act of terror" they aren't saying it was an act of violence due to an unkown motive, it is their pc word for radical islam. When they say police are treating this case "as an act of terror" we all know what it means lol. Except for all the terrorist attacks throughout history that were done by other people but that doesnt fit your narrative I guess. Show me one instance where the media used the phrase "act of terror" where it wasn't for radical islam and I will take it back. I don't know how europeans use these phrases, speaking for american media
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/30/quebec-mosque-shooting-canada-deaths
Trudeau described the shooting as an act of terrorism. “We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a centre of worship and refuge,” he said in a statement. “While authorities are still investigating and details continue to be confirmed, it is heart-wrenching to see such senseless violence. Diversity is our strength, and religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear.”
|
alright alright, I was asking for that, but still the way we describe islamic extremists is getting better, since people are openly tying the terrorism to the religion. Maybe not on TL yet.
Also I was referring to american media, but ok, i'm sure there are examples
|
Why don't we just call it what it is, an act of terror that the attacker claims was committed in the name of Islam?
This is the weirdest hill to die on, tbh.
|
That's fine with me, as long as it includes islam in some way
|
On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything.
The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can.
|
On May 24 2017 06:54 biology]major wrote:
That's fine with me, as long as it includes islam in some way
It is a weird stance to take, because it oversimplifies everything. Islam is not some magical religion that makes people prone to committing violent acts. People used to say that about communism. And the concept of revolution after the French killed all the nobility. People could turn around to tomorrow and use science to justify brazen acts of terror. Are people going to start demanding we call them "rational terrorist"?
|
On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can.
The negative impact was important at the time of the Bible cause you had to win against the Canaanites and the importance of every man was highlighted by the amount of people who died before they could be old enough to fight. It's not that important today, people survive a lot and we don't really need them that much. If it was important today, I don't think you could afford to lose all of those immigrants that you're sending back, I'm pretty sure that's more than 30k people lost.
|
On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can.
This sounds a lot like you saying sexual preference is a choice. The distinction whether people are "going gay" rather than simply being gay is an important one because it is relevant to your point. I certainly agree that, if given the choice, homosexual practices are always a net loss to modern western societies because these societies are currently struggling with low birth rates. If Japan was in its current situation because of a lot of people deciding to be gay, I would say those people are failing their social obligations to continue the society that was built for them. But I am operating under the assumption that it is just as hard for a gay dude to bang a woman as it is for me to bang a man. Are you saying there is a choice involved?
Also, congrats on 13337 posts! You are truly, particularly 1337.
On May 24 2017 06:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2017 06:54 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:52 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 03:42 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2017 03:19 Mohdoo wrote:On May 24 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:
I won't go all prosecutorial here. If you think all religious belief is a ridiculous idea, what you've said here follows and is really the only possible conclusion. I think religious belief lacks intrinsic merit other than societal cohesion, which is the reason it was used to begin with. It is the reason religious belief is particularly prominent in rural communities. It is an artifact of rural life. But that's besides the point. My critique was that people don't allow themselves to filter their beliefs reasonably. There are people who believe homosexual sex in itself is a sin and that it is reasonable to try to prevent it from happening. That is what I am critiquing, the idea that as soon as that penis goes into a consenting dude, instead of a consenting woman, a morally bad thing has taken place. What was humorous to me is how people won't even take a moment to be like "Wait, why would that actually be bad? Why would people have thought this was bad around the time the bible was written? Well, relative to what we knew then, and what we know now, I can understand how they would feel that way. But it has no modern relevance and is can be clearly shown that homosexual sex does not harm society."There are many instances where people are capable of this kind of thought, and many people use this kind of thought with issues unrelated to homosexuality. But the core idea that homosexual sex for the sake of sex is different from heterosexual sex for the sake of sex are morally distinct is an example of poor, incomplete thought. Many Biblical rules (such as the sodomy rules) were created to promote fertility and population growth rates. And beyond that, these rules do help instill a certain civic virtue within society itself. While I don't think that anyone is going to argue that a single incidence of buggering is going to torpedo us, I wouldn't go so far as to say that there's no modern relevance. Right, and I get that. It was important that people be multiplying for lots of reasons. However, a gay dude banging his hubby 100 times a week will never impact anyone, other than the dudes banging. Not society, not any individual. Are you saying there are instances where homosexual sex harms society? Society will suffer when large numbers of people abandon responsible civic behavior. You can't really look at this stuff at the margin to gauge impact. Societal laws and norms aren't created with the margin in mind. They're meant to govern the whole to promote the health of society. You are being vague. Are you saying homsexual sex is irresponsible? I am asking you to confine your argument to a relationship where all things are held constant other than the sexes of the people involved. If dude A decides to put it in a dude, but dude B decides to put it in a woman, are you saying dude A is displaying irresponsible civic behavior? Overall, I think you are posting too vaguely and you aren't expanding on your ideas. You are talking about margin and health of society. Please define that. From where I'm standing, it looks like you are using vague, open-ended ideas to somewhat say homosexual sex is irresponsible, but you are not really *saying* anything. The general idea (classically) is that society is built upon the success of the family unit, and anything that harms the family unit is bad for society, hence the mass proscription of various acts that can be harmful to families. For example, while it may not matter if two guys out of a society of 100,000 go gay and forego creating a traditional family with kids and all, there very much would be a negative impact on that society if 30,000 members followed suit. This is why I said that you can't look at these things at the margin. You have to consider the impact on society when relatively large percentages of the population do the act in question. Obviously, the universe of possible bad acts that harms family encompasses far, far more than the homosexual, which is why the Bible proscribes many other things. Again, the point here is that many of these rules in the Bible do have modern relevance despite the desire of many to toss all things religious into the garbage can. The negative impact was important at the time of the Bible cause you had to win against the Canaanites and the importance of every man was highlighted by the amount of people who died before they could be old enough to fight. It's not that important today, people survive a lot and we don't really need them that much. If it was important today, I don't think you could afford to lose all of those immigrants that you're sending back, I'm pretty sure that's more than 30k people lost.
Not always true. Look at Spain and Japan. They are legitimately struggling and will continue to suffer from low birth rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
