Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

How. Specifically how is the message of that cartoon bigotry and hateful?

the vast majority of Muslims believe that any drawing or portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad is offensive. The artist deliberately chose to be offensive for the sole purpose of being offensive. When one chooses to be deliberately offensive to a religion, I regard that as being hateful and bigoted towards that religion.

No, this is 100% wrong. That a bunch of people believe something doesn't make it so. Just because Muslims think certain drawings are offensive doesn't mean that they actually are offensive.

This goes back to what I was saying about the culture and theology. The Quran doesn't address drawings in any fashion, but there are "supplemental texts" that say it's an absolute no no. One thing they all agree on is there is no real "visual tradition" (for lack of a better term) of what Mohammed looked like which I find sorta odd.

I'm sure he was a white guy. Like Jesus.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two, one of whom was a convert from middle class USA.

 

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Nope, just blaming two dillweeds for attempting mass murder and acknowledging the obvious fact that the reason they did was because of their fervent belief in Islam, not poverty.

Oh, ok carry on.

 

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

well no I disagree on this part.

 

[General Tso]

One of the most intolerant Muslim countries is Saudi Arabia. How's the poverty situation there?

 

[Clifford]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2013/11/03/Kingdom-has-tenth-lowest-poverty-rate-worldwide-says-World-Bank.html

10th lowest in the world. Like I said before, utter horse####.

 

[RCon]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

 

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

well no I disagree on this part.

Yeah exactly and you are totally 100% absolutely completely WRONG.

100%? Absolutely and completely? World without end?

 

[timschochet]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

No. But if millions of people suddenly agreed with them then sure.

 

[timschochet]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2013/11/03/Kingdom-has-tenth-lowest-poverty-rate-worldwide-says-World-Bank.html

10th lowest in the world. Like I said before, utter horse####.

Camel#### would be a more accurate term. Except it isn't. Per The Guardian, 25% of Saudi Arabians live below the poverty line. The wealth isn't spread.

 

[RCon]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2013/11/03/Kingdom-has-tenth-lowest-poverty-rate-worldwide-says-World-Bank.html

10th lowest in the world. Like I said before, utter horse####.

Camel#### would be a more accurate term.Except it isn't. Per The Guardian, 25% of Saudi Arabians live below the poverty line. The wealth isn't spread.

The more appropriate questions would be: A) is that 25% higher or lower than other Muslim countries, and B) is Saudi Arabia more or less tolerant than other Muslim countries.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

well no I disagree on this part.

Tim, as usual you cannot enunciate why you disagree.

If you think the Andres Serranos and Pam Gellars of the world should be kept out of public museums or shouldn't be doing art in a public fashion, or some degree in between, there's probably another thread for that, because that's the issue you're discussing.

 

[RCon]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

No.But if millions of people suddenly agreed with them then sure.

This seems silly. Irrational beliefs are still irrational, regardless of the number of people who hold them.

 

[Apple Jack]

It's also like super hot over there.

 

[RCon]

It's also like super hot over there.

You might be on to something. Wasn't the shooter in this case from Arizona?

 

[timschochet]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2013/11/03/Kingdom-has-tenth-lowest-poverty-rate-worldwide-says-World-Bank.html

10th lowest in the world. Like I said before, utter horse####.

Camel#### would be a more accurate term.Except it isn't. Per The Guardian, 25% of Saudi Arabians live below the poverty line. The wealth isn't spread.

The more appropriate questions would be: A) is that 25% higher or lower than other Muslim countries, and B) is Saudi Arabia more or less tolerant than other Muslim countries.

A) I don't know but I would guess less. B) Actually the question should be are they more or less extremist than othe Muslim countries. Extremism meaning committed to the use of violence to achieve radical ends or as a reaction to perceived offenses. Either way, Saudi Arabia is far less extremist than most of her poorer neighbors.

 

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

well no I disagree on this part.

Tim, as usual you cannot enunciate why you disagree.

Yeah my weakness in this forum is never bothering to explain myself. I need to post more dammit!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

well no I disagree on this part.

Tim, as usual you cannot enunciate why you disagree.

Yeah my weakness in this forum is never bothering to explain myself. I need to post more dammit!

If you think the Andres Serranos and Pam Gellars of the world should be kept out of public museums or shouldn't be doing art in a public fashion, or some degree in between, there's probably another thread for that, because that's the issue you're discussing.

 

[timschochet]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

No.But if millions of people suddenly agreed with them then sure.

This seems silly. Irrational beliefs are still irrational, regardless of the number of people who hold them.

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not toInsult them.

 

[timschochet]

Look, I don't want to keep arguing the same stuff with you guys over and over. Let's look for ways we can agree.

1. Whatever the reasons (historical, economic, or intrinsic) Islam is a far more intolerant religion than any of the world's other major religions, and it has a much larger percentage of those who either participate or sympathize with radical extremist activities.

2. Whatever their motive, these artists have the legal right in this country to draw whatever they want and that right needs to continually be extolled and protected.

Does anyone here disagree with these two points?

Tim ,yeah, I have a problem with (1) take it off your list of issues. US muslims respect the right of people to draw satirical cartoons, they can be offended and object, like Catholics, Jews, Baptists, Hindus, the offensiveness to muslims is not the problem, the problem is people like you who let Isis speak for what Muslims want.

We don't disagree at all about American Muslims. But it has little or nothing to do with my statement which is about Islam as a world religion which I find to be more intolerant, as a general rule, that other major religions. Do you agree with that statement?

But it's not an issue here, in this specific event, which happened in the US. American Muslims did not rise up against this event. Every muslim in America sat on his haunches on Sunday and went about their business. Except two.

Agreed again.

So the issue isn't whether these cartoons were offensive to "muslims", you can put that whole conversation in the garbage can, it's whether it was offensive to these two individuals, and why should we adjust our mores to those two people and the very few like them.

well no I disagree on this part.

Tim, as usual you cannot enunciate why you disagree.

Yeah my weakness in this forum is never bothering to explain myself. I need to post more dammit!

If you think the Andres Serranos and Pam Gellars of the world should be kept out of public museums or shouldn't be doing art in a public fashion, or some degree in between, there's probably another thread for that, because that's the issue you're discussing.

when did I write that?

 

[RCon]

Yeah my weakness in this forum is never bothering to explain myself. I need to post more dammit!

I would suggest that you often hold very strong beliefs that you cannot support with facts or data. In some cases, when you attempt to use facts/data/logic to support your beliefs, the facts/data/logic show exactly the opposite of your belief, yet you then double-down on the belief.

 

[Clifford]

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/business/economy/2013/11/03/Kingdom-has-tenth-lowest-poverty-rate-worldwide-says-World-Bank.html

10th lowest in the world. Like I said before, utter horse####.

Camel#### would be a more accurate term.Except it isn't. Per The Guardian, 25% of Saudi Arabians live below the poverty line. The wealth isn't spread.

The more appropriate questions would be: A) is that 25% higher or lower than other Muslim countries, and B) is Saudi Arabia more or less tolerant than other Muslim countries.

A) I don't know but I would guess less.B) Actually the question should be are they more or less extremist than othe Muslim countries. Extremism meaning committed to the use of violence to achieve radical ends or as a reaction to perceived offenses. Either way, Saudi Arabia is far less extremist than most of her poorer neighbors.

The same Saudi Arabia that just executed a man insulting Islam?

 

[RCon]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

No.But if millions of people suddenly agreed with them then sure.

This seems silly. Irrational beliefs are still irrational, regardless of the number of people who hold them.

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not toInsult them.

I agree with this in principle. However, there can come a point where certain perceived offenses are so over the top that I feel more than justified in ignoring that the group in question claims to be offended. The drawing of Muhammad comes to mind immediately, as does the use of the word thug.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I am setting up a sherpa with Google Maps, a flashlight and Siri to give Timmay directions back to his thread.

 

[timschochet]

#### it. Pam Geller, Saints, Clifford, Rich Conway, all conservatives, Cliff Clavin, all modern libertarians, rockaction, Netanyahu, Baltimore Raven fans, General Tso, General Schmoe, my wife, Morrisey, Rand Paul and his dad, and Miley Cyrus:

You're all banned and censored. I am removing your 1st Amendment rights until further notice.

 

[RCon]

#### it. Pam Geller, Saints, Clifford, Rich Conway, all conservatives, Cliff Clavin, all modern libertarians, rockaction, Netanyahu, Baltimore Raven fans, General Tso, General Schmoe, my wife, Morrisey, Rand Paul and his dad, and Miley Cyrus:

You're all banned and censored. I am removing your 1st Amendment rights until further notice.

You offend me. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.

I don't know who Pam Geller is.

 

[The Commish]

Nope, just blaming two dillweeds for attempting mass murder and acknowledging the obvious fact that the reason they did was because of their fervent belief in Islam, not poverty.

Curious as to why you are so adamant about it being either poverty OR belief

 

[The Commish]

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not toInsult them.

Wait, what? Is this going to be another rabbit hole I go down to find out "that's not what you meant by irrational"? I'd like to understand how "love thy neighbor" is an irrational belief (as you appear to be defining both irrational and belief here). It's certainly not a "belief" found only in religion. Is that the loophole you're going to roll with?

 

[joetrow]

#### it. Pam Geller, Saints, Clifford, Rich Conway, all conservatives, Cliff Clavin, all modern libertarians, rockaction, Netanyahu, Baltimore Raven fans, General Tso, General Schmoe, my wife, Morrisey, Rand Paul and his dad, and Miley Cyrus:

You're all banned and censored. I am removing your 1st Amendment rights until further notice.

Thank you for not using the lords name in vain.

 

[Clifford]

For these two, neither one were living in poverty.

For all extremists of course both are factors, but one is a dominant consistent factor (fervent belief in Islam) and the other is inconsistent (background of poverty). Therefore removing other variables, Islam proves out as a more consistent factor in producing extremism than poverty, when comparing the two.

 

[timschochet]

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not to

Insult them.

Wait, what? Is this going to be another rabbit hole I go down to find out "that's not what you meant by irrational"? I'd like to understand how "love thy neighbor" is an irrational belief (as you appear to be defining both irrational and belief here). It's certainly not a "belief" found only in religion. Is that the loophole you're going to roll with?

No let's not do this. I only meant that faith in a higher power is by definition "beyond reason". That's all. I had no intent to be offensive or denigrate any specific religious beliefs. That being said the questions you raise are interesting but not suitable for this thread. If you wish to pursue discussion come into my thread and I will try to offer you my opinions on this, for however much they're worth.

 

[The Commish]

For these two, neither one were living in poverty.

For all extremists of course both are factors, but one is a dominant consistent factor (fervent belief in Islam) and the other is inconsistent (background of poverty). Therefore removing other variables, Islam proves out as a more consistent factor in producing extremism than poverty, when comparing the two.

You were talking in generalizations before. And do you have data to back your assertion in this quote. I'm particularly curious where you get your data around poor people who don't have Islam as their faith, yet still commit crimes like these. I'm assuming you have that to make claims like this as it's pretty much required.

 

[The Commish]

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not to

Insult them.

Wait, what? Is this going to be another rabbit hole I go down to find out "that's not what you meant by irrational"? I'd like to understand how "love thy neighbor" is an irrational belief (as you appear to be defining both irrational and belief here). It's certainly not a "belief" found only in religion. Is that the loophole you're going to roll with?

No let's not do this. I only meant that faith in a higher power is by definition "beyond reason". That's all. I had no intent to be offensive or denigrate any specific religious beliefs.That being said the questions you raise are interesting but not suitable for this thread. If you wish to pursue discussion come into my thread and I will try to offer you my opinions on this, for however much they're worth.

You understand very few, if any would ever glean your qualification from your initial comment right?

 

[jonessed]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

No.But if millions of people suddenly agreed with them then sure.

This seems silly. Irrational beliefs are still irrational, regardless of the number of people who hold them.

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not toInsult them.

 

[timschochet]

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not to

Insult them.

Wait, what? Is this going to be another rabbit hole I go down to find out "that's not what you meant by irrational"? I'd like to understand how "love thy neighbor" is an irrational belief (as you appear to be defining both irrational and belief here). It's certainly not a "belief" found only in religion. Is that the loophole you're going to roll with?

No let's not do this. I only meant that faith in a higher power is by definition "beyond reason". That's all. I had no intent to be offensive or denigrate any specific religious beliefs.That being said the questions you raise are interesting but not suitable for this thread. If you wish to pursue discussion come into my thread and I will try to offer you my opinions on this, for however much they're worth.

You understand very few, if any would ever glean your qualification from your initial comment right?

I would hope that, within the context of my conversation with Rich, that they would. But in any case Ive clarified it now.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[General Tso]

timschochet, during the recent Baltimore issues, a bunch of talking heads came on TV and stated the word "thug" was offensive. Should the rest of us now adjust our language because some clowns have decided to be irrationally offended by that word?

No.But if millions of people suddenly agreed with them then sure.

This seems silly. Irrational beliefs are still irrational, regardless of the number of people who hold them.

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not toInsult them.

Interesting sidebar showing how religious views are actually hard wired into our brains - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.htmlThe irrational part is when you start killing people over it.

 

[squidrope]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

I'm actually always very careful about this. However, when somebody argues with me about the current state of Islam in the world, I've often pointed out those Pew studies and noted that there seems to be constant religious violence coming from from several areas of the world, largely or almost entirely populated by Muslims, and that the violence is done in Islam's name. It seems hard to ignore that.

As for Geller, I don't get too hung up on her motives. Motive is always the most difficult thing to establish. What I look at are the facts of this incident, and that a "Draw Muhammad Day" lines up quite nicely with those on the agnostic/atheistic left who were the first people murdered as civilians, had fatwas issued, etc for depicting Mohammad, I'm not as concerned about her role. In addition, I'd wager very few people in this thread have started hating Islam broadly because of Geller. Geller is an Infowars kind of woman, and her brand of ideology doesn't generally work with people that think about things. Most people get what she is. In this instance, she happens to have done a public service.

Tim, the only way you get to your small minority is by defining radical as tightly as you can, those that actually join and fight. That's what I asked if you did not consider Streicher radical.Streicher believed all Jews should die. That belief is radical and violent.

The truth you so desperately try to ignore is that in the countries where Islam rules, there is a majority of Muslims who hold radical, violent beliefs, and the system of laws that are essentially determined by the religion are horribly violent and repressive.

You choose to narrow your definition to fit your numbers. It's obvious selection bias that ignores plain evidence to the contrary.

Why even engage him?I'm so tired of him puking in here.

 

[General Tso]

All religious beliefs are, by definition, irrational. Doesn't mean we shouldn't respect those who hold them and try not to

Insult them.

Interesting research showing how religious views are actually hard wired into our brains - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Why-born-believe-God-Its-wired-brain-says-psychologist.html

The irrational part is when people start killing others over religious beliefs.

 

[Apple Jack]

why say in two sentences what can be said in 120 pages.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Geert Wilders takes the show on the road, seeks to display the exhibition in the Netherlands.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/11587797/Anti-Islam-politician-Geert-Wilders-plans-Prophet-Mohammed-expo-after-US-shootings.html

 

[timschochet]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

I'm actually always very careful about this. However, when somebody argues with me about the current state of Islam in the world, I've often pointed out those Pew studies and noted that there seems to be constant religious violence coming from from several areas of the world, largely or almost entirely populated by Muslims, and that the violence is done in Islam's name. It seems hard to ignore that.

As for Geller, I don't get too hung up on her motives. Motive is always the most difficult thing to establish. What I look at are the facts of this incident, and that a "Draw Muhammad Day" lines up quite nicely with those on the agnostic/atheistic left who were the first people murdered as civilians, had fatwas issued, etc for depicting Mohammad, I'm not as concerned about her role. In addition, I'd wager very few people in this thread have started hating Islam broadly because of Geller. Geller is an Infowars kind of woman, and her brand of ideology doesn't generally work with people that think about things. Most people get what she is. In this instance, she happens to have done a public service.

Tim, the only way you get to your small minority is by defining radical as tightly as you can, those that actually join and fight. That's what I asked if you did not consider Streicher radical.Streicher believed all Jews should die. That belief is radical and violent.

The truth you so desperately try to ignore is that in the countries where Islam rules, there is a majority of Muslims who hold radical, violent beliefs, and the system of laws that are essentially determined by the religion are horribly violent and repressive.

You choose to narrow your definition to fit your numbers. It's obvious selection bias that ignores plain evidence to the contrary.

Why even engage him?I'm so tired of him puking in here.

Then why not put me on ignore? Your complaints are incredibly more tiresome than any of my posts.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

My problem with many conservatives in this thread, along with Clifford, is that you're attemtimg to blame the entire religion of Islam for the thoughts and actions of its radical members. I don't want to keep arguing how big that radical faction is; I made some very reasonable assumptions based on the statistics we have, but I can't prove assumptions so I'll drop it. It should be obvious to anyone that with 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, the radical Muslims are a small minority; nonetheless a larger minority than in any other religion (and it's not even worth comparing). But it doesn't represent nearly close to a majority, so nobody should be painting all Muslims with the same brush. And that's what people like Geller try to do, and I hate to see her succeeding in this instance with otherwise smart people in this forum.

I'm actually always very careful about this. However, when somebody argues with me about the current state of Islam in the world, I've often pointed out those Pew studies and noted that there seems to be constant religious violence coming from from several areas of the world, largely or almost entirely populated by Muslims, and that the violence is done in Islam's name. It seems hard to ignore that.

As for Geller, I don't get too hung up on her motives. Motive is always the most difficult thing to establish. What I look at are the facts of this incident, and that a "Draw Muhammad Day" lines up quite nicely with those on the agnostic/atheistic left who were the first people murdered as civilians, had fatwas issued, etc for depicting Mohammad, I'm not as concerned about her role. In addition, I'd wager very few people in this thread have started hating Islam broadly because of Geller. Geller is an Infowars kind of woman, and her brand of ideology doesn't generally work with people that think about things. Most people get what she is. In this instance, she happens to have done a public service.

Tim, the only way you get to your small minority is by defining radical as tightly as you can, those that actually join and fight. That's what I asked if you did not consider Streicher radical.Streicher believed all Jews should die. That belief is radical and violent.

The truth you so desperately try to ignore is that in the countries where Islam rules, there is a majority of Muslims who hold radical, violent beliefs, and the system of laws that are essentially determined by the religion are horribly violent and repressive.

You choose to narrow your definition to fit your numbers. It's obvious selection bias that ignores plain evidence to the contrary.

Why even engage him?I'm so tired of him puking in here.

Then why not put me on ignore? Your complaints are incredibly more tiresome than any of my posts.

Nope.

Oh, by the way, the internet just called and you've been reported missing from this thread:

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/722992-timschochets-thread-music-politics-and-russian-history/

 

[timschochet]

Well I just posted in it. But thanks for the advice!

 

[Clifford]

For these two, neither one were living in poverty.

For all extremists of course both are factors, but one is a dominant consistent factor (fervent belief in Islam) and the other is inconsistent (background of poverty). Therefore removing other variables, Islam proves out as a more consistent factor in producing extremism than poverty, when comparing the two.

You were talking in generalizations before. And do you have data to back your assertion in this quote. I'm particularly curious where you get your data around poor people who don't have Islam as their faith, yet still commit crimes like these. I'm assuming you have that to make claims like this as it's pretty much required.

This comes down to how we define things. How do we separate terrorism from crime? With crime as I define it poverty would be number 1 with any other factor a distant second. But you said "crimes like these" assuming you mean mass murder not connected to robbery or some other obvious material gains. For those crimes, if we are lumping together Aurora, Sandy Hook, ISIS killings, Boko Haram, GermanWings, etc, then I would guess (no I do not have data, this is all opinion) that when you add up all the dead bodies and group all like stated reasons together, Islam would still be the common factor with the highest body count.

However if you want examples, the Hedbo and Garland killers all come from non-poverty backgrounds. So the two latest and most high profile terrorist events outside the Mideast both do not fit the "poverty drives extremism" narrative.

 

[timschochet]

I find you a thoughtful guy, Clifford, though we disagree on the causes of terrorism. What, in your opinion, should the USA be doing about this issue that we currently are not doing?

 

[Clifford]

I think it's smart for our government to be doing what they are doing from a PR perspective but not sure it will work. Honestly I think a lot of the non-radical Muslims are the ones who have to do something. The religion has to go through a reformation. It has to acknowledge that basic human rights and the fact that this is a global world and it will not respect its traditions.

The main thing we have to do immediately is stop all drone attacks. We can't solve poverty, we can't reform Islam, but we can damn sure stop killing people over there indiscriminately. The drone attacks seem to be a recurrent thing mentioned when these guys get caught. If we really want to kill a terrorist we should be willing to risk lives to make sure we get right. I heard latest outside report is that we basically have no idea who we are killing. If that's true Obama is a war criminal.

Other than that I think we should stop shaming people who challenge the religion itself. If we care about human rights we should care everywhere. If we feel it's ok to poke fun at religion it should apply to all religions. If the Book of Mormon doesn't get Parker and Stone branded hateful bigots then neither should this cartoon. And that's up to people like you, not our government.

I mean other than accelerate alternative fuels to point where oil is worth nothing and stop supporting oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia. Remove the money behind the status quo. That removes a page from the terrorist recruiting manual. We would be free to treat this region exactly as we treat Africa - in other words, ignore it completely. So close down bases, stop funding dictatorships or "revolutions" like what happened in Egypt, and just kind of fade away. Without the constant reminders of the great satan these mullahs will have one less target to point at to distract people from how utterly worthless they are as human beings.