Islam - What's your view on it?

[HenrySwanson]

Again, you literally just quoted it...

... and pretending you didn't is... yep.

Did you click the link. You can end up in court because of it. It is not bad faith

I posted saying there was a link?

I'm supposed to work out that when Scaff made the post it was before it was edited? If I'm remembering rightly I didn't get an alert saying there was a post after when I had finished editing it. I think this can be put down to a mistake, as in fairness I could have remembered that the link was added as an edit. I will say it wouldn't have hurt to check for links after I said "did you click the link", as I really got lost when Christian Concern came up.

So again, sorry. But it really isn't bad faith.

 

[Scaff]

These are from

If the instruction to not beat women is true, although, in the Quran you are allowed sex slaves

Islam and Slavery | The Feminist Sexual Ethics Project | Brandeis University

then why is it contradicted here:

Islam and domestic violence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and that a husband shouldn't hit his wife "on the face":

How to Treat Your Wife in Islam - Islam Question & Answer

The husband has to treat his wife in a good and kind manner, and to spend on her food, drink, clothing and accommodation. Whoever wants to be one of the best of the Muslims should be kind to his family, which includes being kind to one’s wife, children and relatives.

islamqa.info

Ah reddit, that fine source of material that's not all problematic.

You want to know why it's contradictory? Because all religion is, and Islam doesn't have anything close to a monopoly here, the Bible give instructions to protect house guests by allowing people wanting to attack them gang-rape your daughters, has instructions on the correct way to treat slaves, commands death for kids you bad-mouth parents, and Jesus clearly stated he wasn't here to get rid of these rules, but to uphold them (and Jesus was particularly clear that he was happy to pit families against each other if they didn't follow him). Your 'but Islam' argument holds no water, well unless you cherry-pick and want to engage in bad-faith arguments, which you clearly do, and don't give a damn how problematic your sources are.

How is that bad faith?

You've said I can't rely on posters to look things up and so have to properly cite claims and since I knew you might not know about the coconut case I edited it in.

Of course I apologise for assuming it was readable

Yeah, that's not an apology, but don't worry, I didn't expect a genuine one from you.

but where did the "Christian Concern" thing come from?

You posted a video by them, when I quoted you it was the linked content immediately following the piece you quoted, but I do note that you are still avoiding explaining why you think they are a suitable source to cite. As so far your 'vetting' of sources for bias is clearly non-existent, which leads one to assume you're not looking for accuracy, but for those that confirm the bias's you have,

Also, for at least the third time, what is the Islamic argument against the Taliban banning those images?

Third what, I don't recall you asking me for that once, let alone three times?

I posted saying there was a link?

After you'd edited in the link a good 20 minutes after the original post. Good faith would be to reply and say something along the lines of 'I edited in a link, you may have missed it, here it is again, let me know what you think'.

I'm supposed to work out that when Scaff made the post it was before it was edited? If I'm remembering rightly I didn't get an alert saying there was a post after when I had finished editing it. I think this can be put down to a mistake, as in fairness I could have remembered that the link was added as an edit. I will say it wouldn't have hurt to check for links after I said "did you click the link", as I really got lost when Christian Concern came up.

Ah, I see, it's actually a combination of the site software and myself that's at fault.

So again, sorry. But it really isn't bad faith.

Normally I would give people the benefit of the doubt, but that moment has now well and truly passed.

 

[TexRex]

Step into Reddit or Twitter for reasons why it...erm...is convincing, and the world has moved on from the opinions being shown here.

Argumentum ad Redditum/Twitterum. Possibly the stupidest example of the bandwagon fallacy that I have ever seen. I don't know whether to be impressed or depressed.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oh joy, the resurgence of ISIS (including in Canada) and almost 1 in 5 prisoners now Muslim in the UK with "convert or get hurt" style conversions rising.

Avengers assemble! We need more "bollards of peace" and to cancel more concerts!

What could go wrong!

If only this could have been predicted....

 

[Scaff]

Oh joy, the resurgence of ISIS (including in Canada) and almost 1 in 5 prisoners now Muslim in the UK with "convert or get hurt" style conversions rising.

Avengers assemble! We need more "bollards of peace" and to cancel more concerts!

View attachment 1406174


View attachment 1406175

What could go wrong!

If only this could have been predicted....

And back to pictures and video links with no explanation or personal take on it.

This is not 'laying out your case logically', it reads as closer to a weird 'appeal to fear' logical fallacy.

Do better.

 

[MatskiMonk]

ISIS are pro-separated bike lanes? Not all bad I guess.

Safe, effective bike infrastructure saves lives.

 

[Meythia]

Safe, effective bike infrastructure saves lives.

Going futher than that:
less designated car space = more space for pedestrians, bikes, and public transport(trams, busses, whatever) + financial benefitting the city for less road repairs, more money for and by public transport (which then could be cheap) + and so on.

Makes for a place that is safe for children, good for health and mind, makes people happy, and all that also being good for climate protection.

 

[HenrySwanson]

For those who want more information and not weird takes (I walked the bridge many days 2015-2019 since I had placements at St Thomas' Hospital and used their study rooms frequently):
The attacks led to this:

Barriers installed to protect London’s bridges in security rethink

Concrete and metal barriers protecting pedestrians from terrorist attacks by cars and lorries were installed on three central London bridges in the aftermath o

www.thetimes.com

....the black and yellow ones on each side of the bridge, and then more lately the installation of heritage bollards:

Protecting London's bridges

We have plans for permanent anti-terrorist barriers on Westminster Bridge

tfl.gov.uk

ISIS are pro-separated bike lanes? Not all bad I guess.

Safe, effective bike infrastructure saves lives.

As someone who was studying at a London hospital on the day of one of the attacks and saw the "junior" doctors (FY1s and FY2s) we were learning from staying after their shifts and helping out in A+E because of the influx of patients, you'll understand that I don't find that particularly funny. I'd expect this is one of the reasons many in this country are turning away from the "tolerant and caring" left, and I can only hope you sort out your problems with alcohol and consider the damage your comments can have on people reading them. Be advised that I'm not offended by it, but since we're on the precipice of a world where the "bad guys" are gaining more power a little reflection and consideration will go a long way.

 

[MatskiMonk]

and I can only hope you sort out your problems with alcohol

Thanks man.

 

[Scaff]

For those who want more information

Maybe consider posting the required information in the opening post, not hours later.

and not weird takes (I walked the bridge many days 2015-2019 since I had placements at St Thomas' Hospital and used their study rooms frequently):
The attacks led to this:

Barriers installed to protect London’s bridges in security rethink

Concrete and metal barriers protecting pedestrians from terrorist attacks by cars and lorries were installed on three central London bridges in the aftermath o

www.thetimes.com

....the black and yellow ones on each side of the bridge, and then more lately the installation of heritage bollards:

Protecting London's bridges

We have plans for permanent anti-terrorist barriers on Westminster Bridge

tfl.gov.uk

As someone who was studying at a London hospital on the day of one of the attacks and saw the "junior" doctors (FY1s and FY2s) we were learning from staying after their shifts and helping out in A+E because of the influx of patients, you'll understand that I don't find that particularly funny. I'd expect this is one of the reasons many in this country are turning away from the "tolerant and caring" left, and I can only hope you sort out your problems with alcohol and consider the damage your comments can have on people reading them. Be advised that I'm not offended by it, but since we're on the precipice of a world where the "bad guys" are gaining more power a little reflection and consideration will go a long way.

Just stop.

You brought this on yourself, you have been politely told several times that your ill-considered and context-free posts that are filled with barely referenced memes/videos/images/etc. do not contribute to a meaningful discussion. Yet you continue to do it, and then act shocked when members react in the way they do.

I have to be honest, this is starting to look like a deliberate approach, rather than a simple lack of thought, and continuing in this vein is not acceptable.

 

[Imari]

As someone who was studying at a London hospital on the day of one of the attacks and saw the "junior" doctors (FY1s and FY2s) we were learning from staying after their shifts and helping out in A+E because of the influx of patients, you'll understand that I don't find that particularly funny. I'd expect this is one of the reasons many in this country are turning away from the "tolerant and caring" left, and I can only hope you sort out your problems with alcohol and consider the damage your comments can have on people reading them. Be advised that I'm not offended by it, but since we're on the precipice of a world where the "bad guys" are gaining more power a little reflection and consideration will go a long way.

I'm confused. Are you pro- or anti-bollards?

Because the first post was distinctly anti-bollard, but this post seems like maybe you'd like something that stopped people ending up in A&E. Protected footpaths and cycleways are becoming pretty standard safety features in modern cities, especially ones that are trying to encourage people not to use cars as much. What's the problem?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Maybe consider posting the required information in the opening post, not hours later.

Just stop.

You brought this on yourself, you have been politely told several times that your ill-considered and context-free posts that are filled with barely referenced memes/videos/images/etc. do not contribute to a meaningful discussion. Yet you continue to do it, and then act shocked when members react in the way they do.

I have to be honest, this is starting to look like a deliberate approach, rather than a simple lack of thought, and continuing in this vein is not acceptable.

This link was in the original post....

Westminster Bridge to get new safety measures four years on from terror attack

Westminster bridge will have fully segregated cycle lanes and permanent protective barriers by the end of January 2022, Transport for London (TfL) has confirmed.

www.standard.co.uk

Now you guys are talking about:

1. Me
2. Cycle lanes
3. Bollards

To be even clearer:

My original post started with links to the rising threat of ISIS in the West and the extremely high rate of Muslim prisoners in UK prisons including how conversions are occurring. It showed, sarcastically, our response to the threat posed by Islamists (again, with links). It then ends with a YT of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the UAE from some years ago (2017 I believe) correctly assessing the situation we face and identifying how we will have ended up in this predicament.

Would you like to debate these issues?

 

[Scaff]

To be even clearer:

My original post started with links to the rising threat of ISIS in the West and the extremely high rate of Muslim prisoners in UK prisons including how conversions are occurring. It showed, sarcastically, our response to the threat posed by Islamists (again, with links). It then ends with a YT of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the UAE from some years ago (2017 I believe) correctly assessing the situation we face and identifying how we will have ended up in this predicament.

And that would have been a much better opening than a meme, a video and a bunch of photos. You need to give people a reason to click on links and watch videos. You also need to provide context and your own position.

I'm not debating this, I'm telling you as a member of staff, to change the way you approach posting.

Would you like to debate the issues?

24 hours later you've finally provided enough context and your own view for that to be possible.

The delay however is only down to one party.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Putting up bollards is akin to treating the itching caused by liver cancer with moisturising lotion.

The UAE minister is correct—we've made this mess by pretending to know better about the religion and censoring ourselves out of some misguided sense of tolerance. Now we must find and implement hard solutions. We can't just rely on the security services to preserve our way of life. We need a Voltaire or Hitchens to radically turn us away from the approach favoured by the left these past decades. It's painfully obvious that a mafia-style ideology necessitates a response that's suitably adequate in severity and which is built from the idea that thinking from the 7th century should stay in the 7th century. Where the impetus for the reformation of the religion comes from cannot solely be from non-Muslims, however, otherwise it will be seen as a "crusade" and resisted just as strongly as the actual crusades. Fighting against the deep pockets of those pushing Wahhabism is another obstacle and conservative beliefs have to be challenged instead of us lying supine and respecting it because it's different to Western conservatism.

 

[Famine]

Why am I a subject of discussion, muses the individual who just straight told someone else that they're an alcoholic for not immediately agreeing with them...

 

[Scaff]

Putting up bollards is akin to treating the itching caused by liver cancer with moisturising lotion.

Do you honestly believe that was a sole action, and not a part of a wider response?

It is also not a unique approach. Oddly enough, physical barriers are not new and have been used for centuries and for a wider range of reasons. The original security gates at Downing Street didn't pop up because of Islamist terrorists.

The UAE minister is correct—we've made this mess by pretending to know better about the religion and censoring ourselves out of some misguided sense of tolerance.

Who's 'we' as this seems like a sweeping generalisation.

Now we must find and implement hard solutions. We can't just rely on the security services to preserve our way of life.

That sounds a lot like a call to vigilante action.

We need a Voltaire or Hitchens to radically turn us away from the approach favoured by the left these past decades.

Ah the centrist strikes again, criticism of the left, but no mention of the failed approaches of the right, or the root causes of the issue itself. Surprised, not surprised.

It's painfully obvious that a mafia-style ideology necessitates a response that's suitably adequate in severity and which is built from the idea that thinking from the 7th century should stay in the 7th century.

This is directly at odds....

Where the impetus for the reformation of the religion comes from cannot solely be from non-Muslims, however, otherwise it will be seen as a "crusade" and resisted just as strongly as the actual crusades.

...with this.

Fighting against the deep pockets of those pushing Wahhabism is another obstacle and conservative beliefs have to be challenged instead of us lying supine and respecting it because it's different to Western conservatism.

Lying supine? Did you miss the entire invasion of Afghanisan?

You know, it was on the telly, they even made some films about it, you should watch some of it. It didn't look very supine to me.

 

[MatskiMonk]

My original post started with links

No it didn't, it started with a gif of Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke laughing at the situation.

 

[Liquid]

"I post like an asshole, why am I the centre of attention?"

 

[Sprite]

Would you like to debate these issues?

 

[Imari]

Lying supine? Did you miss the entire invasion of Afghanisan?

You know, it was on the telly, they even made some films about it, you should watch some of it. It didn't look very supine to me.

And arguably Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Libya.

Fighting against the deep pockets of those pushing Wahhabism is another obstacle and conservative beliefs have to be challenged instead of us lying supine and respecting it because it's different to Western conservatism.

The idea that the west hasn't been aggressively attempting to destroy Wahhabist groups is absolutely bat****. They've been doing it for decades. You have to be actively ignorant to have managed to avoid all the news around fighting al Qaeda, ISIS/ISIL and all their associated friends. Those have been most of the major conflicts the west has been involved in since 9/11.

You have emotions, and they're completely disconnected from facts. Until you learn to observe the world instead of simply taking other people's word for it, you're going to be trapped hating whoever the tabloids want you to hate.