Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[Guest WNS000]

...and to make things clearer for you. zionism is a political ideology, islamism is a political ideology. criticism of zionism is ok, and doesn't necessarily make you an anti-semite (as long as you don't go as far as thinking Israel has no right to exist or other such ridiculous positions). criticism of islamism is also ok, and it doesn't make you bigoted towards muslims. you seem to think the first is ok, but the latter isn't. that's the hypocrisy. and it's a perfectly valid analogy.

 

I would even say (and there is evidence for it) that Islam itself is a political ideology and a religion. No need for the "Islamism" term (although you can consider Islamism as a part of Islam).

[caze]

Islam doesn't have to be a political ideology, though has been for large parts of it's history, as was the Catholic church for much of it's history. Islamism is explicitly political though.

[Guest WNS000]

Islam doesn't have to be a political ideology, though has been for large parts of it's history, as was the Catholic church for much of it's history. Islamism is explicitly political though.

 

Islam was created as a tool for Muhammad to achieve his political/warmongering ambitions (ignore if you are religious and truly believe that Muhammad was spoken to by a god). Islam is not political only in cases when you disregard some parts of its core texts (in which case you would be a bad/ignorant Muslim). Political parts of Islam cannot be separated if you are to respect the holy texts.

[Alcofribas]

...and to make things clearer for you. zionism is a political ideology, islamism is a political ideology. criticism of zionism is ok, and doesn't necessarily make you an anti-semite (as long as you don't go as far as thinking Israel has no right to exist or other such ridiculous positions). criticism of islamism is also ok, and it doesn't make you bigoted towards muslims. you seem to think the first is ok, but the latter isn't. that's the hypocrisy. and it's a perfectly valid analogy.

Nah, you're just arguing against your own bugbears and not listening to me. You do it all the time. I'm entirely in a agreement that criticism of both Islam and Zionism is perfectly fine. I also find it the case that both perspectives are often appropriated by people who are in fact bigots. So, sometimes criticism of Zionism is quite obviously antisemitic in nature, the same is true for criticism of Islam. But as such both ideologies warrant a great deal of skeptical, critical and at times completely condemnatory considerations.

 

This is where you are so confused, much like Jev. There is nothing hypocritical about calling defenders of Israel "Zionists" while simultaneously criticizing the superficial complaints of pop atheists and neoconservatives. This is entirely a fabrication of your simple mind because I've never objected to criticism of Islam as such and I've repeatedly articulated that I find it a crucial component to understanding and improving the geo-political paradigm. In the end I merely disagree with you about the value of the criticism offered by people like Harris and Murray and it is typical of them and followers like you that you're truly incapable of arguing against anything but clichés.

[caze]

 

Political parts of Islam cannot be separated if you are to respect the holy texts.

 

Fine, we should just ignore them then, disrespect the texts (while pretending that you're not). We've also had to ignore large swathes of biblical text to get where were are today in the west.

Edited September 19, 2016 by caze

[Guest]

this thread is a mess

*honk*

[caze]

Nah, you're just arguing against your own bugbears and not listening to me. You do it all the time. I'm entirely in a agreement that criticism of both Islam and Zionism is perfectly fine. I also find it the case that both perspectives are often appropriated by people who are in fact bigots. 

 

You keep saying this, but then when people do offer reasonable criticism you label them bigots.

 

This is where you are so confused, much like Jev. There is nothing hypocritical about calling defenders of Israel "Zionists" while simultaneously criticizing the superficial complaints of pop atheists and neoconservatives. This is entirely a fabrication of your simple mind because I've never objected to criticism of Islam as such and I've repeatedly articulated that I find it a crucial component to understanding and improving the geo-political paradigm. In the end I merely disagree with you about the value of the criticism offered by people like Harris and Murray and it is typical of them and followers like you that you're truly incapable of arguing against anything but clichés.

 

It's not a fabrication, you're incapable of engaging honestly with these arguments, so you fall back on insulting them with claims of bigotry.

[Guest WNS000]

Fine, we should just ignore them then, disrespect the texts (while pretending that you're not). We've also had to ignore large swathes of biblical text to get where were are today in the west.

 

Christianity was reformed by the Church itself because Bible (the new testament) was open to it. Bible was an inspiration spread by many individuals whereas Quran is the perfect, definitive word of god who directly spoken to the prophet. Therefore Islam cannot be reformed because there are no holes to exploit. It is explicitly prohibited to change it (as you would change the orders of the perfect god). There is also no Islamic church which would have such authority. Reformation of Islam would be logical brutality.

 

What we are left with are Muslims who say "when Allah doesn't watch"... And those are, sadly, still not dominating their communities and are unreliable (because the holy texts are still there for them to read unchanged). Interpretation can only do so much.

this thread is a mess

*honk*

 

lol

Edited September 19, 2016 by WNS000

[caze]

Christianity was reformed by the Church itself because Bible (the new testament) was open to it. Bible was an inspiration spread by many individuals whereas Quran is the perfect, definitive word of god who directly spoken to the prophet. Therefore Islam cannot be reformed because there are no holes to exploit. It is explicitly prohibited to change it (as you would change the orders of the perfect god). There is also no Islamic church which would have such authority. Reformation of Islam would be logical brutality.

 

What we are left with are Muslims who say "when Allah doesn't watch"... And those are, sadly, still not dominating their communities and are unreliable (because the holy texts are still there for them to read unchanged). Interpretation can only do so much.

 

 

Actually you're wrong, and it's not only a modern change that has allowed for reform from literalist interpretations of Islam, read up on these guys from the 8th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila

[Guest WNS000]

 

Christianity was reformed by the Church itself because Bible (the new testament) was open to it. Bible was an inspiration spread by many individuals whereas Quran is the perfect, definitive word of god who directly spoken to the prophet. Therefore Islam cannot be reformed because there are no holes to exploit. It is explicitly prohibited to change it (as you would change the orders of the perfect god). There is also no Islamic church which would have such authority. Reformation of Islam would be logical brutality.

 

What we are left with are Muslims who say "when Allah doesn't watch"... And those are, sadly, still not dominating their communities and are unreliable (because the holy texts are still there for them to read unchanged). Interpretation can only do so much.

 

 

Actually you're wrong, and it's not only a modern change that has allowed for reform from literalist interpretations of Islam, read up on these guys from the 8th century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%CA%BFtazila

 

 

You have basically confirmed my views on the problem:

 

"After the 10th century, the movement declined. It is viewed as heretical by some scholars in modern mainstream Islamic theology for its tendency to deny the Qur'an being eternal. In contemporary jihadism, supposed allegations of being a mu`tazili have been used between rivalling group as a means of denouncing their credibility.^[12]"

 

There is not a church in Islam, no central authority. Just various scholars. You cannot change 1.6 billion people like that. You need a centralized power such as Catholic church and a pope.

 

And you cannot go against "Quran cannot be changed" if it is printed in the book itself. There is no interpretation. You also cannot argue with a perfect god and expect him to do logical flaws. You can't even suggest he could be wrong.

 

However, there was this (for some a conspiracy) theory:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran

 

That might be a hole if it was correct.

[Alcofribas]

 

Nah, you're just arguing against your own bugbears and not listening to me. You do it all the time. I'm entirely in a agreement that criticism of both Islam and Zionism is perfectly fine. I also find it the case that both perspectives are often appropriated by people who are in fact bigots.

You keep saying this, but then when people do offer reasonable criticism you label them bigots.

This is where you are so confused, much like Jev. There is nothing hypocritical about calling defenders of Israel "Zionists" while simultaneously criticizing the superficial complaints of pop atheists and neoconservatives. This is entirely a fabrication of your simple mind because I've never objected to criticism of Islam as such and I've repeatedly articulated that I find it a crucial component to understanding and improving the geo-political paradigm. In the end I merely disagree with you about the value of the criticism offered by people like Harris and Murray and it is typical of them and followers like you that you're truly incapable of arguing against anything but clichés.

It's not a fabrication, you're incapable of engaging honestly with these arguments, so you fall back on insulting them with claims of bigotry.

This is the last I'll say about this, it's quite tiresome and we've been over it before. The current discussion was about the term islamophobia. I have repeatedly observed that it is often used by those with vested interests (basically, Muslim and liberal apologists) to stifle serious criticism of Islam and the activities of radical fundamentalist operators. However, I also maintain that the term nevertheless identifies a very real and pervasive bigotry against Muslims and Arabs. So far, I see nothing controversial about this nor does it appear that you and I disagree.

 

We examined the value of the dismissal of the term by Murray and others. The principle objections discussed were the aforementioned misuse of the term as well as the more irrelevant etymological observations you offered. Murray has argued that there is much to be objected to in Islam in a rational manner and has used this as his primary argument when discussing the term islamophobia. I pointed out that this is an insufficient line of reasoning for two main reasons 1) misuse does not preclude correct usage and 2) a great deal of anti-Islamic and anti-Arabic bigotry is described in the language of rational and scholarly argumentation. This is an aspect of his reasoning that I find weak and one-dimensional. You can observe it in this article (http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/comment/108879/we-must-stop-avoiding-discussion) in which Murray reduces the meaning of the term to the following inanity:

 

"Islamophobia, in so far as there is any definition available, is anything that any person who is Muslim regards as being so."

 

His dismissal of the word is based upon reasoning of this low calibre:

 

"The word "Islamophobia" is a crock. A phobia is an irrational fear. Claustrophobia is irrational because small places tend not to kill you. On the contrary, it is highly rational to be afraid of some, though not all, interpretations of Islam. It is rational to be afraid of a Salafist. It is irrational to be afraid of an Ahmadiyya. But there are far more Salafists in the world today than there are Ahmadiyya."

 

This is not serious, it's drivel.

 

You keep pretending you're having the kind of discussion one might hear about in a Sam Harris "On The Regressive Left" pamphlet, a conversation in which I am a bleeding heart liberal engaged in hypocritical double standards when Islam is justly critiqued by rational minds. You keep pretending that I'm refusing to engage in murray's arguments and instead am calling him a bigot and leaving it at that. That's absurd. I've articulated what I believe to be wrong with his dismissal of the term islamophobia (as though his approach even warrants discussion) and I didn't say he was a bigot (I do think he's an idiot on this issue at least), I said that he offers pathetic apologia that we all know is fodder for actual bigotry and he appears entirely unperturbed by it. And that's exactly what he does. He goes to great lengths to defend those who have been leveled with the charge of islamophobia and yet he can't even manage to think rigorously in so doing. He probably is a bigot but I'm not sure. He's definitely not some one who offers any worthwhile insight into the discussion. Hence our disagreement.

[auxien]

Um hey so this is not the right thread for all this u guys pls k thx

 

Sucks Johnson isn't going to be part of the debates. Has anyone seen a legit explanation as to why? I thought the cutoff was 5% of the polls which is around where I thought he was? The two big parties must really scared of the inevitable rise of other parties into the mainstream. Johnson is a joke, but I really thought third parties had a better shot with these two main candidates...

[LimpyLoo]

Saying he offers nothing of value to the conversation is pretty hyperbolic...his voice is needed at least to balance out the "open the borders" nuts...he says "hey, maybe a huge influx of people with vastly different cultural norms and values might not be a great idea" and he gets shouted down as a bigot who hates darkies...

[WeAreOceans]

Mr Trump says it is "sad" that Mr Rahami, a naturalised US citizen, will receive medical care and legal representation

 

I was just watching a Deep Space Nine episode last night (one at a time, ladies) that comes to mind reading that

 

Gul Dukat: In Cardassia, the verdict is always known before the trial begins; and it's always the same.

Commander Sisko: In that case, why bother with a trial at all?

Gul Dukat: Because the people demand it. They enjoy watching justice triumph over evil, every time. They find it comforting.

Commander Sisko: Isn't there ever a chance you might try an innocent man by mistake?

Gul Dukat: Cardassians don't make mistakes.

[Silent Member]

Islam for president

[Rubin Farr]

First debate is September 26.  I'm anticipating this.

[hello spiral]

Islam for president

[triachus]

 

for president

 

[usagi]

 

 

for president

 

 

[Guest]

 

 

 

for president

 

[ambermonk]

 

 

 

 

 for president

 

[YO303]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 for president

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Deer

[chartnok]

 

pretty funny (and true) picture 

[Adieu]

rofl stefan molyneux, who is the man pictured there, is a unintellectual hack, appeals to the lowest common dominator, shit-stirrer, who is only interested in promoting himself by aligning himself with what he views as a possible base of supporters. 

 

And trump may not be hitler but he is exactly the type of candidate the causes global conflict and fascist policies by encouraging and supporting the worst elements of nationalistic pride and the most base levels of fear and anger.

 

While he may not "be" those things, he has said racist things, misogynistic things, etc. etc. 

 

he has filed for bankruptcy at multiple companies and he has reportedly done a lot of vicious and awful things with his power.

 

definitely not the type of human you want leading a country.

 

Not only that but he's not an "outsider" and he brings nothing new to the table. He's the quintessential politician who will say anything that will get him elected.

 

He's the illusion of change.

Edited September 20, 2016 by AdieuErsatzEnnui

[Nebraska]

is that cartoon based on this video?