Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

I do not know what that means.

Both parts were perfectly clear, but let me expand.

The first point highlighted that you are picking an absolutist series of positions, held by almost no-one, and attempting to assign them to a broad group of people. Doing so is a strawman logical fallacy.

The second was an observation/question based around the 'red pill' meme of people heading down a radicalist rabbit hole, in this case the rabid nationalism of Farage, et al. Which given you recent sources seems rather valid.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I already responded and said Islam.

Still not sure why you chose Jainism to compare it to out of all the world's religions.

And now religions that were founded by a single person, like Islam.

How many other founders preached as much violence and themselves took part in violence?

 

[Scaff]

And now religions that were founded by a single person, like Islam.

How many other founders preached as much violence and themselves took part in violence?

Stop being absurdly simplistic (and I've seen this playbook before) and look at the totality of them.

 

[HenrySwanson]

Stop being absurdly simplistic (and I've seen this playbook before) and look at the totality of them.

Explain why it's absurd.

I'll explain my reasoning:

• Islam at the present moment is overrepresented in religious violence
• Start by looking at the beginnings of the religions
• Identify any aberrant factors

Which part is wrong here so far?

 

[Scaff]

Explain why it's absurd.

Really!

So you think that (for example) Christianity can be based on just the purported actions of a single person, who may not have existed, didn't work alone. Who's actions were reported not by his contemporaries, but people who lived after he died. Writings that have been rewritten numerous times, hundreds of years after the events.

To be blunt, only one position is absurd here, and it's not mine. Ignoring the root of any religion, ignoring the actions taken since its foundation, and focusing just on a tiny part of it is the absurd position.

 

[HenrySwanson]

 

[Scaff]

Oh dear.

That was poorer than expected, now how about you explain why you believe that focusing on just the founder, and not the totally of a religion is a valid way to assess it.

As right now you're following an all to familiar pattern.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This whole discussion has become pointless... skip to the end. @HenrySwanson what do you want to see happen in order that the coming **** show you're afraid of is averted? Don't post a link to a video or a newspaper article, don't answer with another question, don't assume anyone else here knows what answer you're alluding to - just say it.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This whole discussion has become pointless... skip to the end. @HenrySwanson what do you want to see happen in order that the coming **** show you're afraid of is averted? Don't post a link to a video or a newspaper article, don't answer with another question, don't assume anyone else here knows what answer you're alluding to - just say it.

We treat religion like a pathology, but one that can have protective features. Nurture those parts while criticising and becoming intolerant of the bad stuff. Don't attack the person, attack the system; shine a light on its foundation and stop treating it with reverence. Imagine we could skip forward a thousand years and people are part of a religion that glorified Trump. Only, because it's a religion you can't notice anything bad about it, and if you try and point out the bad qualities of it or the guy it all started with you are hounded out and called a bigot.

I want a world where this happens:



A religious idiot is mocked, the "blasphemous" opera sells out, and the world moves on after protests.

We don't have that, with America potentially sliding into authoritarianism depending on who wins next month and globally with the religion of Islam.

Yes, there are extremists found in every group, but we have to resist the bad parts of those groups' core messages and stop blaming the bad stuff on "misinterpretations". We condemn and simultaneously promote the virtuous part(s). It's the only way they will evolve.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@HenrySwanson

Okay, that's a relatively clear objective. I'll pose the following two statements:

- The method by which we enforce behaviour (domestically) in this country is this judicial system, the 'acceptable' behaviours are set by our elected representatives, peers, and the King.

- The way we promote certain behaviour is far more nebulous, but I'll suggest the big two are the Media (encompassing targeted and two way social media, and one way regulated creative & News media), and Education.

These two things all somewhat regulated/legislated/mandated by the government so I think it's reasonable to suggest that in order to effectively condemn the bad stuff, and promote the virtuous parts, you require the government to act (how else would you enforce any action)... what do you want those actions to be? How do you want current laws to be amended?

 

[HenrySwanson]

@HenrySwanson

Okay, that's a relatively clear objective. I'll pose the following two statements:

- The method by which we enforce behaviour (domestically) in this country is this judicial system, the 'acceptable' behaviours are set by our elected representatives, peers, and the King.

- The way we promote certain behaviour is far more nebulous, but I'll suggest the big two are the Media (encompassing targeted and two way social media, and one way regulated creative & News media), and Education.

These two things all somewhat regulated/legislated/mandated by the government so I think it's reasonable to suggest that in order to effectively condemn the bad stuff, and promote the virtuous parts, you require the government to act (how else would you enforce any action)... what do you want those actions to be? How do you want current laws to be amended?

We get a First Amendment for a start. Me potentially being able to cry victim and have legal recourse if someone calls me bald is ridiculous.

The media and the public become unafraid of offending and start to offend within reason. Play the ball, not the man. People will be attacked for offending. People will die at the hands of the perpetually offended. But it's worth it in the long run otherwise what's the alternative? There are always going to be groups into which humans will split and religions in particular will resist reforming but we can look to the past to see how the Age of Enlightenment won out over Christian orthodoxy for ideas.

Islam is a unique beast however because it's essentially a how-to-live guide for 7th-century Arabia, and so the path to reformation will necessarily be different. There's only so much non-Muslims can do. A straightforward thing would be to ban cousin marriage. Islamic Modernism lost out to Wahhabism and Salafism in the previous centuries and to course correct a fine line has to be tread between intervention and support.

The closest to Muhammad in terms of a religious parallel is probably Joseph Smith. It's blindingly obvious to see that Mormonism and Islam differ and we can make pretty good, educated guesses as to the causes.

EDIT:

I posted this earlier in another thread and am finishing up watching the end but it is worthwhile to see how protests should happen and the reasons behind them.

 

[MatskiMonk]

@HenrySwanson

You don't need to keep editing your post, it comes across as just throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks.

We get a First Amendment for a start.

In order that Laws aren't contradictory, you'd have to repeal entire Acts or Clauses in our Laws (Malicious Communications Act, Public Order Act to name a couple), and then ditch the big one, the Human Rights Act. Then replace it with something more like 1A. I think this would be a pretty monumental task, but okay, I don't entirely disagree.

Me potentially being able to cry victim and have legal recourse if someone calls me bald is ridiculous

... this on the other hand is basically horse crap. If you're referring to the Finn case that was an employment tribunal which, while discussion of the phrase Bald **** was present, it was only mentioned as a factor twice in the 43 pages of statements and Judgement... with the sentence uttered after Bald **** seemingly being tangible threats of physical violence, It only appears to be noteworthy at all because it brought about a discussion on whether commenting on something that's generally a trait of one sex counts as sex-related harassment (not harassment of a sexual nature). The whole thing was a crap fest from the outset and is a great case to demonstrate how out of hand 'industrial language' and banter can get if not moderated in the workplace.

If that's not the case you were referring to, I'd be curious to see the judgment on it. Specifically the judgement though, not a news piece written with the intention of imparting a specific opinion on the reader about the state of the country.

The media and the public become unafraid of offending and start to offend within reason.

Within reason? Well that's all settled then. I'm sure we'll all agree on what's reasonable.

A straightforward thing would be to ban cousin marriage.

Restricting peoples rights then... on what grounds?



edited for formatting, having to rely on the swear filter.

 

[Scaff]

I posted this earlier in another thread and am finishing up watching the end but it is worthwhile to see how protests should happen and the reasons behind them.

Please stop posting videos without actually explaining what context they have, use them to support a point, not replace one. That you admit to posting it previously with actually having watched it fully yourself really doesn't help, particularly given that your responsible if it contains content that breaks the AUP.

 

[HenrySwanson]

@HenrySwanson

You don't need to keep editing your post, it comes across as just throwing **** at the wall to see what sticks.

I edit posts to add points that I feel are important, and to rewrite for clarity.

... this on the other hand is basically horse crap. If you're referring to the Finn case that was an employment tribunal which, while discussion of the phrase Bald ** was present, it was only mentioned as a factor twice in the 43 pages of statements and Judgement... with the sentence uttered after Bald ** seemingly being tangible threats of physical violence, It only appears to be noteworthy at all because it brought about a discussion on whether commenting on something that's generally a trait of one sex counts as sex-related harassment (not harassment of a sexual nature). The whole thing was a crap fest from the outset and is a great case to demonstrate how out of hand 'industrial language' and banter can get if not moderated in the workplace.

Which means it's now a precedent.

Within reason? Well that's all settled then. I'm sure we'll all agree on what's reasonable.

We won't all agree. That's the beauty of debate and the evolution of society.

Restricting peoples rights then... on what grounds?

I was convinced by:

Scandinavia has got the message on cousin marriage. We must ban it too

A ban would not only help western nations but transform the developing world by boosting growth and reducing the bloodshed and criminality fuelled by tribalism

www.thetimes.com

I'm not sure if I can post the archive link to get around the paywall since I seem to be the only one who's posted from that site.

Alert readers may remember that I wrote on this subject 18 months ago, arguing that we in the UK should ban consanguineous marriage. The column became one of the most-read stories of the year, not because of any journalist merit but because readers instantly spotted the logic. Friends in Scandinavia said the piece had been picked up there, and an article I cited by the brilliant scholar Patrick Nash started to trend. A movement seemed to be spreading.


Why is this significant? Why do I think a ban could not only help western nations but transform the developing world by boosting growth and reducing bloodshed? Well, permit me to offer a bit of context. Humankind has been tribal for much of the past 12,000 years (since the agricultural revolution). This form of social organisation made sense because cohesive groups built on kinship are good at defending territory. And how are the tribes glued together internally? By cousin marriage. People marry within the group, the unions typically arranged by patriarchs, ensuring a clear demarcation with outsiders.
A problem arose, however, when tribal societies sought — slowly, messily, often painfully — to become nation states. You can perhaps see the challenge. A region populated by tribes isn’t really a nation: it is an arena of disunity and, often, conflict. Look at many of the world’s problems today — from terrible clashes in Yemen and Syria to civil wars in Sudan — and you see the same root cause. All these places are riven by tribe, clan and ethnic group.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I edit posts to add points that I feel are important, and to rewrite for clarity.

It doesn't work, the former seems to act against the latter.

Which means it's now a precedent.

You're bald.

Do you think you now have grounds to take me to court? Or do you perhaps think that the judges took into account two separate threats of physical violence that were attached to the comment made to a guy who lost his job when he complained about it.. do you think by any chance, that this context is key as to whether or not the Employment Tribunals just decided it was generally illegal to refer to someone as bald - or do you think they've just decreed calling someone bald a crime?

We won't all agree. That's the beauty of debate and the evolution of society.

I shall remind you of this the next time a judge makes a reasoned decision in a court case you're absolutely fumin' about.

I was convinced by:

Can you clarify if what you're referring to is promoting integration with wider societies and/or in some cases widening the genetic diversity of a society? Further then, if that's a goal, would you consider extending the 'no cousins' rule, to 'no people of your own ethnicity'?

 

[TexRex]

Why would that constitute force if the association is voluntary?

It couldn't possibly be. Free association means that association may be so conditioned otherwise it isn't free.

Because there's been significant overlap in discussion here between respect for individuals' wishes an adherence to religious dictate, I couldn't be sure where your head was and so I inquired as I did.

It's only force if the association is mandatory.

Mandatory association? As by what?

I guess maybe as by association with government, but that seems more like governance and the condition of being held to and subject to enforcement of legal standards than association. I know you haven't indicated that you meant this and I don't mean to say that you did, but I can't think of anything else (employment isn't mandatory even if income is usually necessary) and I thought if you did mean this that a couple steps in discussion could be preempted by addressing it as I have. Maybe you weren't referring to anything but couldn't commit to there not being anything which would apply.

That's just common courtesy. You're voluntarily supporting an associate's recovery by choosing not to put a challenge in front of them. That's admirable.

To me, the same applies to religion. Though I don't believe or exercise belief, I will participate in conventions (like before-meal "blessings") with those for whom I care. That within reason, as I indicated regarding consumption of pork. I'm also not going to attend typical religious services, but the inclusion of religiosity in atypical services, such as weddings and funerals, won't drive me away.

But when the person in question tries to prohibit you from drinking - even when outside their presence, because they think drinking is an abomination - they are forcing their version of acceptability on you. That ish will not be tolerated.

That's typically accomplished by passage and enforcement of legal statute, and that sort of thing, which is to d
say subjective acceptability, frequently is tolerated.

Blue laws are still pretty common, whereby particular goods may not be sold on a certain "holy" day. That's often limited to alcohol (it isn't exclusively), though prohibition of alcohol sales on such days serves no practical purpose beyond appeasing a particular sky daddy. Proponents will say that it maintains order by discouraging uncouth behavior but that's nonsense.

"Obscenity," which is to say that which is deemed obscene, is also steeped in religiosity and subjective morality. Though its scope has been narrowed and enforcement isn't commonplace, it may still be subject to enforcement according to jurisprudence which even recognizes that offense is subjective and therefore not legitimately harmful.

Why can this religion never take the blame?

Why should it? You called it a how-to-live guide, which is appropriate given that individuals refer to it prior to acting but the individual has to want to act, and the individual needn't act on everything therein. One may seek guidance on how to live their own life at the same time that they're not compelled to stone adulterers to death.

You also compared religion to food. That was funny. Not funny in a thoughtful, George Carlin criticizing the government kind of way so much as a stupid, Adam Sandler as a waiter in an Italian restaurant dry humping Kirstie Alley kind of way.

As right now you're following an all to familiar pattern.

Eeyup. One's propensity for bad faith engagement is such that I've wondered if it's pathological.

This is fun:

Extremists

And they’re dealt with by the copious laws governing such things.

Ah, the algorithm strikes again.

What algorithm?

The algorithm is like what MAGAs do, i.e. they'll follow a blatantly obvious script.

It's the "NPC" pejorative, an ad hom assertion that one's arguments are to another's design rather than reasoned and independent of similar arguments made by another, offered in lieu of making or further substantiating a reasoned counterargument.

It's suuuuuuper bad faith and it's also suuuuuper pathetic.

A straightforward thing would be to ban cousin marriage.

A state that can prohibit such is a state that can prohibit homosexual and interracial marriage. Get the state out of relations absent legitimate rights violations.

I was convinced by:

The column became one of the most-read stories of the year, not because of any journalist merit but because readers instantly spotted the logic.

You're a gullible midwit persuaded by self-fellating drivel and inappropriate use of hyphens?

Also, lol, leaning entirely on another's argument without offering a single original thought as to why it's good or correct is rather NPC-like. Gosh, that's awkward.