Political Correctness Sexual Assault in Europe Thread Two

Status
Not open for further replies.
Enrique Vargas said:
I have alreay posted various arguments re islam=totalitarian ideology. Not to repeat them, I'll just post a few links: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/10/islam-a-totalitarian-ideology
Click to expand...

I looked at the first link, and the argument it's making is that a traditional teaching of Islam can support the actions of terrorists. That's different that assuming the entirety of the world's Muslims are involved in a conspiracy?

I mean I can see the argument about traditional teaching, I think that's in line with what Vortex said about cultures as snapshots of different centuries. Thus I could probably the same of many religions "traditional teaching".

What is the neutral definition of ideology you are using?

The second video seems light on actually making an argument - is there a link to the woman's actual presentation?

I might watch the remaining videos, but if they're inline with the first two links I have to admit I don't find this persuasive.

Though, to reiterate, I'm open to both the argument that there's a nexus point between Islam and certain cultural values that leads to violence, though given the prevalence of sexual assault against women and violence against gays globally this seems possible for many culture-religion nexuses.

I'm also open to, and at least partially agree, that media reporting in some cases seems to want to avoid discussing this connection. Though I would also note that the flip seems true as well, that other media (such as some the links you've shared) seem to also want to try and generalize this connection for purposes beyond seeing the actual criminals punished.
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
How so? And can you explain the ad populum fallacy?
Click to expand...

To say that "there are a billion and a half of muslims, therefore, you can not criticize the religion practiced by so many people" is ad populum fallacy:
The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.
The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth.
 
Then you should go, perhaps, to the quran and the hadith itself to understand why it is an ideology.
BTW, I never mentioned any "conspiracy" by Muslims, I just point out that their idweology is about conquering/converting/exterminating the "kuffar".
bit about "appeasers": this term, by the way, is used a lot by Hirsi and other ex-muslims who heroically fight against islam, defining by that term those who deny the danger of this ideology for Western civilizations. My Syrian and Iranian friends, who are vehemently anti-islam, use this term desparigingly when they talk about western apologists of this cult. Iranian students I have tell me that the youth in that country mostly hate islam, is sick of it and want to live normal lives, like their Western counterparts.
 
Enrique Vargas said:
To say that "there are a billion and a half of muslims, therefore, you can not criticize the religion practiced by so many people" is ad populum fallacy:
The ad populum fallacy is the appeal to the popularity of a claim as a reason for accepting it.
The number of people who believe a claim is irrelevant to its truth.
Click to expand...

I don't think citing the billions of practitioners is an example of ad populum. It's noting that the sample size is incredibly large so using isolated examples to condemn the entirety of the faith isn't logical.

I would agree that someone claiming that billions of practitioners not committing violent crimes as proof that there's no Islamic cultural-religious nexus connected to violence at all would be fallacious reasoning, but I think that would more correctly be the No True Scotsman Fallacy?

Enrique Vargas said:
Then you should go, perhaps, to the quran and the hadith itself to understand why it is an ideology.
BTW, I never mentioned any "conspiracy" by Muslims, I just point out that their idweology is about conquering/converting/exterminating the "kuffar".
bit about "appeasers": this term, by the way, is used a lot by Hirsi and other ex-muslims who heroically fight against islam, defining by that term those who deny the danger of this ideology for Western civilizations. My Syrian and Iranian friends, who are vehemently anti-islam, use this term desparigingly when they talk about western apologists of this cult. Iranian students I have tell me that the youth in that country mostly hate islam, is sick of it and want to live normal lives, like their Western counterparts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification, apologies for distorting your view - was not intentional.

But I still am not clear on how you define an ideology. Christianity, at least in a traditional interpretation, also claims that non-believers are damned for eternity and this was part of the historical justification for colonialism. Hinduism had a millennia old caste system that was designed to preserve power for the few on the backs of the many. Even conflicts in East Asia were supported in part by Buddhism in some cases.

Some of these supposed goals of conquering unbelievers might be more explicit in the Koran, but I don't think a religion is simply its text but also its practitioners' relation to the text. I do recognize that the ability to cite scripture (whether that's the Koran, some old Hindu texts, the Bible, or whatever) as God's word is a strong barrier to acceptance of secular humanist values but, at the same time, I'm also unconvinced that Islam by definition has to be about conquering/exterminating/converting.
 
Another aspect of islam that is particularly repugnant to me, as a dog lover: their hatred for dogs.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/dogs.htm

In Iran, this is what they do:
https://www.thedodo.com/iran-bans-dog-ownership-803774433.html

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/...h-burning-acid-has-incited-worldwide-outrage/


http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2796/muslims-ban-dogs-europe

Here in Spain, in Gerona, muslim community demanded that the City Hall ban dogs for blind people on public transportation, because "it's offensive" to them. The City Hall refused, evidently. Now, this:

http://islamversuseurope.blogspot.com.es/2011/09/muslims-poisoning-dogs-in-spain.html

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...people-walking-their-dogs-this-is-sharia.html


BTW, I adopted mine from a guy who was doing to work in Dubai, and was informed dogs were banned there.
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
I don't think citing the billions of practitioners is an example of ad populum. It's noting that the sample size is incredibly large so using isolated examples to condemn the entirety of the faith isn't logical.

I would agree that someone claiming that billions of practitioners not committing violent crimes as proof that there's no Islamic cultural-religious nexus connected to violence at all would be fallacious reasoning, but I think that would more correctly be the No True Scotsman Fallacy?



Thanks for the clarification, apologies for distorting your view - was not intentional.

But I still am not clear on how you define an ideology. Christianity, at least in a traditional interpretation, also claims that non-believers are damned for eternity and this was part of the historical justification for colonialism. Hinduism had a millennia old caste system that was designed to preserve power for the few on the backs of the many. Even conflicts in East Asia were supported in part by Buddhism in some cases.

Some of these supposed goals of conquering unbelievers might be more explicit in the Koran, but I don't think a religion is simply its text but also its practitioners' relation to the text. I do recognize that the ability to cite scripture (whether that's the Koran, some old Hindu texts, the Bible, or whatever) as God's word is a strong barrier to acceptance of secular humanist values but, at the same time, I'm also unconvinced that Islam by definition has to be about conquering/exterminating/converting.
Click to expand...

In the beginning of my interventions here, I cited numerous polls re muslim world veiws on death for apostasy, sharia, law of the land, caliphate, ISIS, and so forth. take a look at it, you'll be stunned.
I've been to practically all muslim countries. All, without an exception, opressive, scary hellholes, except the countries governed by Ba'thist rulers like Assad, father, then son, Saddam, Gadafi or Mubarak. Simply because they were secular rulers, and kept islam at bay, pretty much, like Turkish military with Ataturk abd after. There is no country with muslim majority where an atheist, a gay, a woman with no veil, a Jew, even a dog would be safe.
 
Enrique Vargas said:
In the beginning of my interventions here, I cited numerous polls re muslim world veiws on death for apostasy, sharia, law of the land, caliphate, ISIS, and so forth. take a look at it, you'll be stunned.
I've been to practically all muslim countries. All, without an exception, opressive, scary hellholes, except the countries governed by Ba'thist rulers like Assad, father, then son, Saddam, Gadafi or Mubarak. Simply because they were secular rulers, and kept islam at bay, pretty much, like Turkish military with Ataturk abd after. There is no country with muslim majority where an atheist, a gay, a woman with no veil, a Jew, even a dog would be safe.
Click to expand...

I have Syrian friends who have lived in this area for about as long as me 12-15 years. They are total supporters of Assad Bashar. The wife used to go to Syria very summer with their son for a couple of months, all their family are still there. They said Bashar was good to his people including the Christians who are (were) a minority over there. Totally contradicts what we hear on the news...
 
Enrique Vargas said:
Heroic people like Al-Sisi should be admired. They raise their voice for the urgent reform in islam, noting that it can not go on antagonizing the rest of the world.
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2015/...ic-thinking-is-antagonizing-the-entire-world/
Click to expand...

Indeed. Apparently it is even politically incorrect for muslims to be wary of Isam. Not only are they belittled by the arrogant righteous members of our society who do not see how our very system of democracy and liberty can be used against itself, but they have to negotiate daily death threats from less tolerant muslims. :(

I have been listening a lot to what they to say, and many are greatly concerned.
 
Red said:
I have Syrian friends who have lived in this area for about as long as me 12-15 years. They are total supporters of Assad Bashar. The wife used to go to Syria very summer with their son for a couple of months, all their family are still there. They said Bashar was good to his people including the Christians who are (were) a minority over there. Totally contradicts what we hear on the news...
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, Red. I've been to Syria when the old Assad, Hafezulla, was alive, then, when his son took power. Syria was a secular, relatively free, safe country. All my friends are fiercely pro-Assad, they say the father and son new how to keep islamists controlled. The desastrous Western policy ended all that.
 
I am going to bring this thread to an end, because there is a danger that discussions like this can become really intense and polarised. If anyone thinks they have something really important to say, that has not already been said, please send me a PM.

David
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top