|
On September 13 2010 07:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 07:36 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:28 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:23 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 05:50 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote:
Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself. Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology. No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name. In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way. You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing. Do you know what this is? ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Serbian_Cross1.svg/150px-Serbian_Cross1.svg.png) What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today? Because 15 years ago a sect of Christianity "represented" something far worse than even what we see from Islam in Saudi Arabia today.
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
|
On September 13 2010 06:33 Keyser wrote:
In this case the semantic argument is important though, because you gave the intrinsic value weight where it shouldn't have any. Islam being 'intrinsically good'(I don't agree with this) does not change the fact that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Islam.
By that I mean that Nazism in any form advocates Ideals that are no longer tolerated by western society, while mainstream Islam does not. Not in any way moreso then Christianity or Judaism does anyway.
As for your second point, I couldn't care less about people who think Islam is evil. I would like you to read my last post in this thread where I make an example with an animal protection group.
I already addressed that lolwut.
What is up with you and making inappropriate analogies? It has been Nine years since 9/11, and the most important thing to do if you want the nation and the world to heal from these wounds isn't to continue to cling on to old prejudices. If this was happening on 2001, I would be singing a different tune, but guess what? Its 2010.
As for your final point, their motivation is not interesting either. It was done in the name of Allah even if all they were thinking about were the 72 virgins waiting for them heaven. It is similar to an author dedicating his book to someone on the first page. It's about the message you send, and not about what is actually true.
No, they weren't thinking about the 72 virgins. That's an extremely shallow view of religion and why people are driven to such extremes by it. Imagine yourself living a marginalized existence, degraded by the powers that be, completely powerless, and filled with hate. What religion does is vindicate that hatred and allows a person the conviction to go and kill himself "for the cause".
That isn't intrinsically connected to Islam at all. Islam can be substituted with any religion, and even if you removed all the worlds religions, the need to vindicate ones own desires for significance and an outlet for hatred would simply create religions.
Trust me, for extremists, the 72 virgins is a just a bonus on the back of there head.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 13 2010 07:43 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 07:38 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:36 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:28 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:23 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 05:50 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote:
Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself. Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology. No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name. In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way. You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing. Do you know what this is? What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today? Because 15 years ago a sect of Christianity "represented" something far worse than even what we see from Islam in Saudi Arabia today. I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame?
|
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
Then if you agree that Islam is not intrinsically problematic and is compatible with Western society, and that it can change relatively quickly, AND that mainstream islam is not any worse then Christianity, then why are you opposed to it?
(and I'll be honest, I didn't' even know you agreed with the above...I thought you thought that Islam was inherently problematic in Modern society...)
Because by halting it, you can only ever slow down the "integration" of Islamic values with Western society. When has stratification and polarization led to less stratification and polarization?
|
Well to be fair there isn't a mosque being built at Ground Zero. People lose sight of the fact that it is merely a community center with a mosque inside of it and it's three blocks away from ground zero. This is like calling a hospital a church because it has a chapel inside of it.
As far as calling it a "victory mosque" nothing could be more ridiculous. The real victory for the terrorists who committed these acts is that they have caused a massive division amongst the public and generated irrational hate for Islam. Limiting religious freedom in our country will only prove to the extremist factions of Islam that their violence and hatred has affected our way of life. Embracing muslim-americans doesn't harbor terrorism imo, it spits in the face of it.
|
On September 13 2010 07:45 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 06:33 Keyser wrote:
In this case the semantic argument is important though, because you gave the intrinsic value weight where it shouldn't have any. Islam being 'intrinsically good'(I don't agree with this) does not change the fact that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Islam. By that I mean that Nazism in any form advocates Ideals that are no longer tolerated by western society, while mainstream Islam does not. Not in any way moreso then Christianity or Judaism does anyway. Show nested quote +
As for your second point, I couldn't care less about people who think Islam is evil. I would like you to read my last post in this thread where I make an example with an animal protection group.
I already addressed that lolwut. Show nested quote +
What is up with you and making inappropriate analogies? It has been Nine years since 9/11, and the most important thing to do if you want the nation and the world to heal from these wounds isn't to continue to cling on to old prejudices. If this was happening on 2001, I would be singing a different tune, but guess what? Its 2010.
Show nested quote +
As for your final point, their motivation is not interesting either. It was done in the name of Allah even if all they were thinking about were the 72 virgins waiting for them heaven. It is similar to an author dedicating his book to someone on the first page. It's about the message you send, and not about what is actually true.
No, they weren't thinking about the 72 virgins. That's an extremely shallow view of religion and why people are driven to such extremes by it. Imagine yourself living a marginalized existence, degraded by the powers that be, completely powerless, and filled with hate. What religion does is vindicate that hatred and allows a person the conviction to go and kill himself "for the cause". That isn't intrinsically connected to Islam at all. Islam can be substituted with any religion, and even if you removed all the worlds religions, the need to vindicate ones own desires for significance and an outlet for hatred would simply create religions. Trust me, for extremists, the 72 virgins is a just a bonus on the back of there head.
About healing from the wounds: I agree with you. All I have ever said in this thread is that building a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people killed in the name of Islam is reasonable to be offended by. That's the only thing i've said, and people keep pinning all these other views on me that I don't have. I am not interested in arguing the proper course to "heal from the wounds" or whatever. I have no "old prejudices". I am not prejudiced at all. Personally I couldn't care less about 9/11 as a tragedy, and it didn't really surprise me that it happened after all USA has done to the world, but that's a completely different debate.
As for the 72 virgins: I know it's overly simplistic, I was sparing you the details because I didn't feel like it was relevant to the discussion. At this point it seems like you just want to "win" the discussion by turning it into something else because you can't really attack the one and only argument i've made(mentioned above).
|
About healing from the wounds: I agree with you. All I have ever said in this thread is that building a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people killed in the name of Islam is reasonable to be offended by.
:/.
I agree that it is "reasonable" to be offended by it in the sense that "I could see why a normal person would be offended by it. In fact, the first time I heard this, I was kind of shocked until I read a bit more closely into it, and found out some crucial facts (Like it isn't a big fucking traditional Muslim Mosque literally on top of ground Zero, but a community center for the Muslim community a few blocks down). If you had expressed that view clearly, there wouldn't have ever been an argument.
And I can see how the masses of people would be offended after pundits convinced them that a "monument" to Islam was being built on "Top" of ground zero. But as we can clearly see, neither are event vaguely true.
However, that really isn't what you started the argument with.
Namely, comparing Imam Rauf to Neo-Nazis, and comparing the building of the Mosque to building a Neo-Nazi "clubhouse" on Auschwitz....
edit:
and before you say "I'm not comparing"
Al Qaida and Imam Rauf are not the same, but they do have something in common, which is the religion of Islam. Similarly, neo-nazis and nazis have a hatred for jews inherent in the nazi ideology in common. It is fair to say that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Allah, and that the executions at Auschwitz were carried out in the name of the nazi ideology.
This, by definition, is comparing.
|
On September 13 2010 07:46 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 07:43 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:38 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:36 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:28 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:23 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 05:50 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote:
Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself. Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology. No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name. In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way. You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing. Do you know what this is? What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today? Because 15 years ago a sect of Christianity "represented" something far worse than even what we see from Islam in Saudi Arabia today. I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there. How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame?
In the case of Islam, I believe the ideology has not changed very much. Instead, the political landscape has changed, and Islam is now being "more fully utilized" by prominent leader figures. I feel like Islam lends itself better to extremism than other religions. For example, you won't find examples of suicide bombings within other mainstream religions(at least not on any significant scale). As for Japan, it would just be speculation. I don't really think Japanese culture at its core has changed that much, they are just behaving differently in a different situation. Give them the emperor and their old situation back and they would be willing to die for him all over again.
|
Ok I'm not sure if this was mentioned yet, but this building is not a mosque. It's a sports center that's open to all people and just so happens to have a room for praying for Muslims out of convenience. This story was just overblown by the media and exaggerated way beyond proportion.
|
On September 13 2010 08:03 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 07:46 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:43 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:38 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:36 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:32 Jibba wrote:On September 13 2010 07:28 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 07:23 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 05:50 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 05:28 Badjas wrote:
Keyser, I don't agree with that analogy. I find the comparison not reasonable. The eradication of Jews as an ideology of Nazi's does not compare to the worship of Allah. A closer analogy would be the liking to the killing of infidels, whatever way you put that, as interpreted by some Islam as a religious duty imposed by the Koran. The speculation on the true interpretation of the Koran is something that I do not wish to involve myself. Of course the two are different, but within the context of my argument the analogy holds. The entire point is that you don't celebrate/exercise/worship/praise the ideology/motivation/cause behind mass murder on the site of those murders. That is the only thing I am saying. I am not comparing the worship of Allah to following the nazi ideology. No, it is still incredibly stupid, because Allah is worshipped not only by Muslims, but also by Jews, Christians, and Bahá'ís. Your argument is like saying that the Parti Socialiste in France is a neo-Nazi political party because both have the word "socialism" in the name. In case you weren't aware, the Socialist Party in France is not a neo-Nazi party, by the way. You obviously didn't get the details in my argument. Allah is not worshipped by neither Jews nor Christians. Sure, the religions are similar, they all have a root in Judaism and so it is essentially the same guy we're talking about, but for all practical purposes the religion of Islam represents something completely different than Judaism and Christianity today. And no, your analogy is not accurate at all. If I had said that both extremists and non-extremists are terrorists because they are both muslims and muslims carried out the plane crash, it would be accurate, but I said no such thing. Do you know what this is? What does the serbian cross have to do with what Islam represents today? Because 15 years ago a sect of Christianity "represented" something far worse than even what we see from Islam in Saudi Arabia today. I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there. How is it that entire ideologies change within a 5-10 year period? At one moment, all Japanese citizens are willing to die for the Emperor and the next, they're head over heels for General McCarthur? Is Shintoism really to blame? In the case of Islam, I believe the ideology has not changed very much. Instead, the political landscape has changed, and Islam is now being "more fully utilized" by prominent leader figures. I feel like Islam lends itself better to extremism than other religions. For example, you won't find examples of suicide bombings within other mainstream religions(at least not on any significant scale). As for Japan, it would just be speculation. I don't really think Japanese culture at its core has changed that much, they are just behaving differently in a different situation. Give them the emperor and their old situation back and they would be willing to die for him all over again.
Thats because there are basically only five mainstream religions. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.
Among them, only two of them are commonplace in extremely volatile and uneducated places in the world. Islam and Hinduism. In the case of Hinduism, the Naxalites are commies lols, so obviously, Hinduism isn't really relevant.
So that just leaves Islam. Its really pretty coincidental. Personally I think Christianity and Islam are on a perfectly even "tendency to make people do irrationally crazy shit" scale, but Christianity doesn't get as much hate because most predominately Christian countries are in the west.
And really, religious ideologies are reflections of culture, not the other way around. If you properly educate people and give them sustainable and stable futures, then the extremism goes away.
|
On September 13 2010 07:50 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
I am not sure how that relates to my argument. Did you even read what I have been saying throughout this thread? Do you really know what my opinion is? Because to me, it sounds like you think you are talking to someone who does not know his history, and who thinks Islam is the devil and that Christianity is not. I did say somewhere that Islam -today- is worse, and I stand by that. Christianity in the past was just as bad, if not worse. If the WTC crashers did it in the name of Christianity i'd be against building churches there.
Then if you agree that Islam is not intrinsically problematic and is compatible with Western society, and that it can change relatively quickly, AND that mainstream islam is not any worse then Christianity, then why are you opposed to it? (and I'll be honest, I didn't' even know you agreed with the above...I thought you thought that Islam was inherently problematic in Modern society...) Because by halting it, you can only ever slow down the "integration" of Islamic values with Western society. When has stratification and polarization led to less stratification and polarization?
There's the ideology/religion itself and then there is the actual practice of it. Most religious ideologies are incompatible with modern society, but people can be molded to conform to a more acceptable version. This is what happened with Christianity. Islam today is more connected to its roots, in part because of how the Quran is taken as the absolute word of Allah whereas The Bible is accepted to be written by a collaboration of priests and important people, and in part because the Muslim countries are less advanced.
See, I don't like most of the values being preached by the Quran. I don't like Christianity either. I have no religious beliefs whatsoever. I do agree that integration is the best alternative for the world, but integration is a two-way street. It doesn't happen by tolerating everything. But I am not trying to halt anything. My criticism of a potential mosque on ground zero was actually not related to religion. For example, if the plane crashes was done in the name of the animal liberation front, and some other, less extreme animal rights organization opened a new office right on top of ground zero, i'd be saying the same thing.
|
opened a new office right on top of ground zero, i'd be saying the same thing.
But as many have said, it isn't building a giant Mosque right on ground Zero.
First of all, its three New York blocks away. That's basically half a mile. Then it isn't a full blown mosque, its a praying/communion area inside of a community center.
And then the pundits come :/.
|
On September 13 2010 07:56 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
About healing from the wounds: I agree with you. All I have ever said in this thread is that building a monument to Islam on the gravesite of people killed in the name of Islam is reasonable to be offended by.
:/. I agree that it is "reasonable" to be offended by it in the sense that "I could see why a normal person would be offended by it. In fact, the first time I heard this, I was kind of shocked until I read a bit more closely into it, and found out some crucial facts (Like it isn't a big fucking traditional Muslim Mosque literally on top of ground Zero, but a community center for the Muslim community a few blocks down). If you had expressed that view clearly, there wouldn't have ever been an argument. And I can see how the masses of people would be offended after pundits convinced them that a "monument" to Islam was being built on "Top" of ground zero. But as we can clearly see, neither are event vaguely true. However, that really isn't what you started the argument with. Namely, comparing Imam Rauf to Neo-Nazis, and comparing the building of the Mosque to building a Neo-Nazi "clubhouse" on Auschwitz.... edit: and before you say "I'm not comparing" Show nested quote +
Al Qaida and Imam Rauf are not the same, but they do have something in common, which is the religion of Islam. Similarly, neo-nazis and nazis have a hatred for jews inherent in the nazi ideology in common. It is fair to say that 9/11 was carried out in the name of Allah, and that the executions at Auschwitz were carried out in the name of the nazi ideology.
This, by definition, is comparing.
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
|
On September 13 2010 08:21 Half wrote:Show nested quote +opened a new office right on top of ground zero, i'd be saying the same thing. But as many have said, it isn't building a giant Mosque right on ground Zero. First of all, its three New York blocks away. That's basically half a mile. Then it isn't a full blown mosque, its a praying/communion area inside of a community center. And then the pundits come :/.
I know it's not right on ground zero. In fact, I started this argument by announcing that since it is not actually on ground zero, I don't mind if they set up a mosque there. The argument escalated from there and turned into a "what if it was right on top of ground zero" debate. I am sure that caused some confusion for people who didn't read the post where I wrote that. 
|
On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead.
Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
|
On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler!
Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
|
my view is that we should stop spending so much time on this non-issue.
|
freedom of religion. Let them have it, they are no exception to that principle. The fact that this is actually a discussed topic really speaks volumes about how idiotic some people really are.
|
On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane.
Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
|
On September 13 2010 08:45 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2010 08:35 Keyser wrote:On September 13 2010 08:33 HunterX11 wrote:On September 13 2010 08:26 Keyser wrote:
Fine, so it is comparing, but not in the sense whoever I was responding to made it sound. Let me rephrase myself. Al Qaida and the Nazi's killed a bunch of people in the name of their respective ideologies. Imam Rauf and the Neo Nazi's, despite being different from Al Qaida and the Nazi's, steps in and builds monuments to said ideology(which they have in common, with different approaches to the ideology, ie. level of extremism) on the gravesite. This is not comparing them in the sense that Imam Rauf is just as bad as Neo Nazi's, it is comparing them in the sense that they are both doing something that is reasonable to be offended by. I wrote it to illustrate that point because it makes perfect sense to me, but it seems like it caused more confusion instead. Oh, so you're just comparing Imam Rauf to a terrorist because he is Muslim? How is this any less stupid? Maybe Angela Merkel is following the same path as Adolf Hitler by being Chancellor of Germany? Don't get offended, I'm not comparing them, I'm just saying it makes sense that Merkel is the modern Hitler! Seriously? I've explained it as simple as it gets. If you still don't get it then I am not sure what to tell you. Your conclusion from what i wrote is nothing short of insane. Your simple explanation is that, for the purposes of how we should react to people's ideologies, Muslims : al Qaida :: neo-Nazis : Nazis. That is insane.
Except that is not my explanation at all, that is your extreme misinterpretation of my explanation. This has nothing to do with reacting to ideologies. If you have actually read everything i've written and you still don't get that, there's just no hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
