|
On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
To Clarifiy: exactly which culture, exactly where? If you name it: is there no such thing comparable in the western world? Is it actually a matter of culture, or a matter of dictator regime ruling in some part of the world. Your making it too easy for yourself, you reckon something you dislike and indentify a whole culture as the culprit. However it´s not that simple. In the muslimic world, there are tons of different religious groups, different sets of laws regarding women and men. Different states with different mentalities. How do you see the same culture in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia? Those are pretty different in any aspect of life you may perhaps refer to and both muslimic in majority.
|
On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
If part of the problem with the "actual culture being practiced today" has to do with its attitude toward the Koran, the question may not be able to be entirely disentangled.
|
On August 13 2012 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:48 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 04:42 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 04:36 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 04:20 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 03:39 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 03:34 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2012 03:32 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 03:25 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:
[quote]
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species. You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument. One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small. PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting. I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y. Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where. No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?". Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong. You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it? I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true. Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought. Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean? I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective Can you elaborate on this step of the argument? I don't follow. If it's "subjective" in the way that you say, would that then render it illegitimate? What other sorts of measurement (or perhaps a better word, evaluation) would one perform?
It would probably help to just read the thread and see where we were talking...
His whole basis was being objective and rational. I was pointing out that his focus on rationality was a product of his own cultural subjectivity. So I guess yea, I am saying that renders it illegitimate. I'm saying you cant measure culture vs culture. They are different, that is why they are separate cultures. Each has a history and reason for it's development. I'm not trying to attach a grade to each one.
|
On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
The Bible and the Quran are not the same.
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
|
On August 13 2012 04:58 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:52 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person? (historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot) Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable. I value the bible highly, but I am not a christian and I do not believe that it is the "word of god." How does that fit into your schema? Your mistake (and the mistake of most christians) it to believe that the bible is a unitary text, which it is not. If I have performed intellectual suicide, my intellect is doing some very convincing post-mortem twitching. Show nested quote +
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
Patriarchy, my friend. You have to know who the father is, or the economic system collapses.
Did you just now mistake me for a Christian? Or am I just misunderstanding your post? And if cherry picking is allowed, and certain bits can be disregarded, why even have a holy book to begin with? I propose a unified, fits all religions, IKEA style instruction manual instead.
Anyho, if it's simply economics, that makes sense. Could have like an applebees coupon deal, two wives for the price of one, side goat not included.
|
On August 13 2012 05:08 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. The Bible and the Quran are not the same. The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god. Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future. You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive. Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors. The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error? Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw. This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook. The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much. The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation. The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw. So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament. (For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
i didn't mean to say that the books are similar, i meant to say both religions are suspect to interpretation and thus you can' t take the pure text for everything there is.
|
On August 13 2012 03:34 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 03:32 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 03:25 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2012 03:15 Xiron wrote:On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote:
I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species. You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument. One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small. PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting. I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y. Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where. No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
What? Cultures are rational now? And peaceful, to boot?
Oh, internet. :p
|
On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
|
On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. To Clarifiy: exactly which culture, exactly where? If you name it: is there no such thing comparable in the western world? Is it actually a matter of culture, or a matter of dictator regime ruling in some part of the world. Your making it too easy for yourself, you reckon something you dislike and indentify a whole culture as the culprit. However it´s not that simple. In the muslimic world, there are tons of different religious groups, different sets of laws regarding women and men. Different states with different mentalities. How do you see the same culture in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia? Those are pretty different in any aspect of life you may perhaps refer to and both muslimic in majority.
I ask you to trust nothing, I ask you to look for yourself.
Do you really believe Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are all that different when it comes to women and homosexuality? They are startlingly similar in this regard, as are most middle eastern countries. The cultures differ massively in many ways, but certain core values are almost unanimously shared.
I labeled nothing and no one a culprit. I personally find it repelling, and want no part if it, that is all.
|
On August 13 2012 05:05 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:53 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 04:42 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 04:36 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 04:20 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 03:39 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 03:34 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2012 03:32 SupLilSon wrote:On August 13 2012 03:25 Thorakh wrote:
[quote]You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
[quote]I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
[quote]Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
[quote]I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y. Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where. No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?". Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong. You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it? I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true. Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought. Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean? I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective Can you elaborate on this step of the argument? I don't follow. If it's "subjective" in the way that you say, would that then render it illegitimate? What other sorts of measurement (or perhaps a better word, evaluation) would one perform? It would probably help to just read the thread and see where we were talking... His whole basis was being objective and rational. I was pointing out that his focus on rationality was a product of his own cultural subjectivity. So I guess yea, I am saying that renders it illegitimate. I'm saying you cant measure culture vs culture. They are different, that is why they are separate cultures. Each has a history and reason for it's development. I'm not trying to attach a grade to each one.
I know what you're talking about. I'm questioning your argument that a) rationality is culturally relative and b) subjectivity -> illegitimacy. I disagree with both of those claims.
On August 13 2012 05:11 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:58 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 04:52 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person? (historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot) Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable. I value the bible highly, but I am not a christian and I do not believe that it is the "word of god." How does that fit into your schema? Your mistake (and the mistake of most christians) it to believe that the bible is a unitary text, which it is not. If I have performed intellectual suicide, my intellect is doing some very convincing post-mortem twitching.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
Patriarchy, my friend. You have to know who the father is, or the economic system collapses. Did you just now mistake me for a Christian? Or am I just misunderstanding your post?
Yeah, you're misunderstanding. I'm just saying that, as a non Christian, I think the bible is a pretty sick good book (edit: and parts of it are utterly horrifying). I think you are operating under an excluded middle paradigm, where one either takes it all or rejects it all, which is illegitimate.
And if cherry picking is allowed, and certain bits can be disregarded, why even have a holy book to begin with?
Because it's a record of people trying to figure stuff out, and you should read it and try to grok where they are coming from so that you can learn from them and avoid their mistakes. It's the same reason you study something like Descartes, not because he's totally right about everything, but because you couldn't have thought the better things if he hadn't thought the worse things first.
I propose a unified, fits all religions, IKEA style instruction manual instead.
If you could produce such an artifact, I would happily compose your hagiography.
Anyho, if it's simply economics, that makes sense. Could have like an applebees coupon deal, two wives for the price of one, side goat not included.
Nothing is "simply" economics.
|
On August 13 2012 05:14 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from.
|
I think it's pretty clear just looking at France, Germany, UK and Sweden than "multiculturalism" doesn't work. Who needs graphs and analyses if you're avoiding certain areas of town etc. That's saying enough.
|
On August 13 2012 05:26 phanto wrote:
I think it's pretty clear just looking at France, Germany, UK and Sweden than "multiculturalism" doesn't work. Who needs graphs and analyses if you're avoiding certain areas of town etc. That's saying enough.
Yes, this is because multiculturalism is the ideology of late capitalism. It is what legitimates the existence of such "certain areas of town"
|
On August 13 2012 05:22 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:14 farvacola wrote:On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan. The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from.
I never said they were to be admired, I am merely suggesting that Islam as it manifests itself on a national level is not monolithic enough to bear sweeping generalization.
^Jameson you dog.
|
On August 13 2012 05:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:22 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 05:14 farvacola wrote:On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:
[quote]
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan. The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from. ^Jameson you dog.
 surprised to see me on tl?
|
On August 13 2012 05:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 05:22 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 05:14 farvacola wrote:On August 13 2012 05:02 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:57 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:48 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:41 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:
[quote]
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ? Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds. Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today. Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran. Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan. The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from. I never said they were to be admired, I am merely suggesting that Islam as it manifests itself on a national level is not monolithic enough to bear sweeping generalization.
I have never suggested it was. My argument was that certain elements within Islam are incompatible with many western societies. If someone wants to worship allah and pray in the mosque after work I couldn't care less. Hell, I worked with a bunch of guys who prayed in the lunchroom every day. Didn't bother me.
If I offended you by appearing racist or prejudiced towards an ethnic group I apologise, that was not my intent.
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with multiculturalism. It's how you go about achieving it that creates problems. Asians, for example, have assimilated quite successfully with their host nations, evidenced by the ubiquitous Chinatown. Immigrants from the Middle East & North Africa however, are causing lots of issues for Europe. The major difference between the two is that the former is voluntary, the latter is not.
You have waves of people being forced to immigrate due to threats of wars. People who would otherwise be content with where they are, their culture, and their politics - steeped in what they are as to being unwilling to change. You're bound to end up with conflicts when you try to assimilate these people.
I think religion plays a lesser role here as a lot of Asian immigrants are also Muslim. It comes down to how willing the immigrant is to adopt their host country. Not the other way around.
|
On August 13 2012 05:08 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2012 04:33 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:28 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 04:15 Cele wrote:On August 13 2012 04:07 McBengt wrote:On August 13 2012 02:03 Cele wrote:
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay. That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns. In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil. The two are not comparable. There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second. I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US. Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness. You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise. The Bible and the Quran are not the same. The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god. Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future. You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive. Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors. The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error? Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw. This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook. The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much. The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation. The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw. So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament. (For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
Sounds a lot like what Christianity went through a couple hundred years ago.
I think it's pretty clear just looking at France, Germany, UK and Sweden than "multiculturalism" doesn't work. Who needs graphs and analyses if you're avoiding certain areas of town etc. That's saying enough.
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
|
On August 13 2012 00:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Well i never said that immigration between similar cultures was bad , but the thing is Europe will struggle to sustain just the people living there now because it is tapped out resource wise.I know that in the UK coal production peaked around 100 years ago , back in 1913.North sea oil and gas production peaked around 10 years ago , UK just announced it's worst monthly trade deficit on record last month a large part of it due to declining resource take in the north sea , the UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.
If you recall one of the main reasons the Romans invaded Britain was for it's vast resource of tin.Of course this was 2000 year ago and it's all gone now.So you've got a country with no resources left , barely any manufacturing left (Rolls Royce opened a brand new aircraft engine plant in Singapore last year by the way) and a financial sector that caused the GFC.
Of course the UK has a mild climate good for agriculture.Still , only 60% of food eaten in the UK was domestic , 40% was imported.Point is the UK has 60 million people living there but enough resources for 10 to 20 million living a lower standard of living.I make the same conclusion for the rest of Europe , no more immigration needed.
Resources are not as important as they used to be. South Korea and Denmark are doing really well today, and they have nothing in terms of resources. Today the big producers sell technology and produced goods, like cars, electronics, entertainment, clothes and processed food.
In UK's case they have a huge entertainment industry, mainly their music industry, where they are nr 1 in the world per capita. That's one of the sectors that pays for their food deficit.
|
On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
