Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with most Muslims - but there is something wrong with the honour killings, with Islamism, the stonings. The treatment of women, the human rights violations, the treatment of rape victims. These are problems, whoever you choose to attribute them to.
EMFM, I am assuming by Islamism you mean the extremist forms of super Wahabi esque Islam. To which I think you would get no argument from anyone. The problem is that over... and over... and over... people cannot resist the temptation to paint all Muslims, or Arabs, with the same brush by saying basically anything bad that happens anywhere in the Middle East or any crime committed by people from the Middle East is to blame on the religion of Islam.I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is nothing wrong with most Muslims - but there is something wrong with the honour killings, with Islamism, the stonings. The treatment of women, the human rights violations, the treatment of rape victims. These are problems, whoever you choose to attribute them to.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
Very true and not a shock. At all. The same people who bent over backwards to separate out Germans in general from the Holocaust or Nazi ideology paint Muslims with a completely uniform brush.
The funny side of all that is that those people that condemn the germans are always the first to defend terrorists, suddenly there is such a thing as a situation, that forces people to act in a certain way instead of acting out of blind hate. These people are always the first to call someone a hypocrite. Very true and not a shock. At all. The same people who bent over backwards to separate out Germans in general from the Holocaust or Nazi ideology paint Muslims with a completely uniform brush.
It amazes me how your mind seems to be mentally blocking the simple, repeated and explained fact that I never said 'all'. It's right there, in words, you can read, should be simple even for those who lost half their brain to leftist assumptions.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
The funny side of all that is that those people that condemn the germans are always the first to defend terrorists, suddenly there is such a thing as a situation, that forces people to act in a certain way instead of acting out of blind hate. These people are always the first to call someone a hypocrite.
It amazes me how your mind seems to be mentally blocking the simple, repeated and explained fact that I never said 'all'. It's right there, in words, you can read, should be simple even for those who lost half their brain to leftist assumptions.
So all Muslims are terrorists now? Alright, then all Germans are Nazis and should have been hung to the very last man, woman and child.The funny side of all that is that those people that condemn the germans are always the first to defend terrorists, suddenly there is such a thing as a situation, that forces people to act in a certain way instead of acting out of blind hate. These people are always the first to call someone a hypocrite.
It amazes me how your mind seems to be mentally blocking the simple, repeated and explained fact that I never said 'all'. It's right there, in words, you can read, should be simple even for those who lost half their brain to leftist assumptions.
I never defended a terrorist, and I never mass condemned all Germans. So your delusion about me holding a double standard here is simply that.
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi:
So all Muslims are terrorists now? Alright, then all Germans are Nazis and should have been hung to the very last man, woman and child.
Again your brain seems to be mentally blocking the simple, repeated, and explained fact that I never said 'all', quite a fascinating bug.So all Muslims are terrorists now? Alright, then all Germans are Nazis and should have been hung to the very last man, woman and child.
Fragony is right Koga , his posts go Muslim muslim islam arab immigrant beard backwards islamic goat ****** muslim muslim muslim Muslim , but he doesn't say all 
Redicule, blind spots, and conditioned anti-racist reflexes 
Originally Posted by :
Fragony Re: 13 year old Girl raped and than stoned for "adultary"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim , muslim muslim , and muslim muslim-muslim muslim
Fragony Re: 13 year old Girl raped and than stoned for "adultary"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslim , muslim muslim , and muslim muslim-muslim muslim
I didn't expect this to become a pretext of a cultural analysis, but merely a acknowledgment of flashlight on the way the female gender gets treated in an corner of Africa.
My personal thoughts on this are:
1) Traditional patriarchical society embraced and still embrace the islamical religion quite strongly, because the teachings and interpretations of the religion itself were shaped in a strictly patriachical society.
2) Traditional practices can be strongly reeinforced by religious patterns and beliefs or remodelled under the heavy influence of the specific interpretations - which still is grounded in the mainstream interpretaions of the religion.
3) So if both a strong culture and a strong religion are aligned in a social and political climate where heavy violence is accepted on a large scale terrible things can happen to somebody which is perceived to have violeted various rules.
Sadly Somalia is a dark example of it, and the girl suffered her terrible fate. We can not be certain of the exact circumstances, but must be certain that her brutal execution was a terrible crime.
P.S: If such a "mindset" is used here in Europe to punish others the state should use an iron fist and a gentle hand to treat offender and victim respectively.
My personal thoughts on this are:
1) Traditional patriarchical society embraced and still embrace the islamical religion quite strongly, because the teachings and interpretations of the religion itself were shaped in a strictly patriachical society.
2) Traditional practices can be strongly reeinforced by religious patterns and beliefs or remodelled under the heavy influence of the specific interpretations - which still is grounded in the mainstream interpretaions of the religion.
3) So if both a strong culture and a strong religion are aligned in a social and political climate where heavy violence is accepted on a large scale terrible things can happen to somebody which is perceived to have violeted various rules.
Sadly Somalia is a dark example of it, and the girl suffered her terrible fate. We can not be certain of the exact circumstances, but must be certain that her brutal execution was a terrible crime.
P.S: If such a "mindset" is used here in Europe to punish others the state should use an iron fist and a gentle hand to treat offender and victim respectively.
Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine:
This issue is a matter of pure evilness, where you use religion as a mass-domination method. Adolf Hitler used nationalism as a means of mass domination. Extremists use religion, there were even more massacres that had been done in the name of communism, USA way of democracy still convinced many that "they were liberating Iraq". The quality or the kind of the cover-up does not matter. There are masses and a certain group of people using different ideologies or dogmas in their advantage towards the control of that mass.
If some certain idology was to be blamed, others would be impossible to be used for mass-domination. Yet even democracy was used as a tool.
Briefly, if your mind is stiff enough, you'll crave to skip this obvious truth in despair.
I, on purpose, had given an example of atheism followed by the Catholic one, just to make sure that you wouldn't take it religiously or think that I'd push Christianism into that ring. Despite my attempt you did. Pointing out another error here, 'cause expecting a step forward seems to be failing.
Yes, Islam has a teaching that puts woman one step behind the man. However I simply dislike the way that this act of extreme vandalism is trying to be equalized with the sexual inequality. This is terror, some violence that does not come out of sexual inequality. The purely evil minds nurtured by a war-worn and extremely unstable environment yield such a disgusting crime. And when you cover it up as "in the name of Allah", everyone joins you, let alone reacting.
They made witch hunts in Europe by Medieval ages, didn't they? Please grab my point; when people have not much hope and wealth to sit, think and act responsibly they can be easily directed the way a "clever" one wants them to. It was not about Christianity, nationalism, communism, democracy or Islam. It's all about a mass control where head figures would like their mass to act like.
I never wish that one day your country gets so worn, torn and destabilized that I'd hear of such extreme actions.
Your society may not be doing it today but if it ever gets as bad as Somalia or any other African country is, you'll have thousands in the streets hunting Muslims. It WILL happen. You're even acting as the masterminds of such actions today.
Welcome to the human nature.
Very interesting angle LEN This issue is a matter of pure evilness, where you use religion as a mass-domination method. Adolf Hitler used nationalism as a means of mass domination. Extremists use religion, there were even more massacres that had been done in the name of communism, USA way of democracy still convinced many that "they were liberating Iraq". The quality or the kind of the cover-up does not matter. There are masses and a certain group of people using different ideologies or dogmas in their advantage towards the control of that mass.
If some certain idology was to be blamed, others would be impossible to be used for mass-domination. Yet even democracy was used as a tool.
Briefly, if your mind is stiff enough, you'll crave to skip this obvious truth in despair.
I, on purpose, had given an example of atheism followed by the Catholic one, just to make sure that you wouldn't take it religiously or think that I'd push Christianism into that ring. Despite my attempt you did. Pointing out another error here, 'cause expecting a step forward seems to be failing.
Yes, Islam has a teaching that puts woman one step behind the man. However I simply dislike the way that this act of extreme vandalism is trying to be equalized with the sexual inequality. This is terror, some violence that does not come out of sexual inequality. The purely evil minds nurtured by a war-worn and extremely unstable environment yield such a disgusting crime. And when you cover it up as "in the name of Allah", everyone joins you, let alone reacting.
They made witch hunts in Europe by Medieval ages, didn't they? Please grab my point; when people have not much hope and wealth to sit, think and act responsibly they can be easily directed the way a "clever" one wants them to. It was not about Christianity, nationalism, communism, democracy or Islam. It's all about a mass control where head figures would like their mass to act like.
I never wish that one day your country gets so worn, torn and destabilized that I'd hear of such extreme actions.
Your society may not be doing it today but if it ever gets as bad as Somalia or any other African country is, you'll have thousands in the streets hunting Muslims. It WILL happen. You're even acting as the masterminds of such actions today.
Welcome to the human nature.
Your view on humanity is very negative but I'm afraid it's also correct.
Maybe it's not what you meant and please forgive me if I misunderstood your viewpoint, but it seems to me like your viewpoint gives the individuals who are part of the so-called masses an easy way out. It takes away the individual responsability, because it gives them an excuse: I was following the mass, I had no choice...
Sure, truly desperate people act different then us spoiled westerners, but there's also such a thing as humanity. The individual always has the choice not to follow the masses.
However, on the other hand, in all honesty, I have to admit that I have never been hungry and desperate so I can't predict how I would react if I were part of a desperate mass that's following some nutjobs.
Would I refuse to follow at the risk of getting stoned myself or would I follow out of fear or (misplaced and false) hope that it will get better if I do as I'm told?
I'm pretty sure that when I would stand there in the front row, ready with a stone in my hand and looking at the 13 year old girl, that I would know for sure that what's happening, is wrong.
But would I still throw the stone at the poor girl?
Sitting in my chair, on a desk, well fed, warm, happily married, owning a house and having some savings on the bank, no dictator or religious nutjobs, let alone a hysterical mass looking at me, I'd say: no, never.
Hungry and desperate, several members of my relatives and close friends killed, sick or dying on no hope for improvement within the next decade, with the eyes of the crazy nutjobs in power on me and a crazy mass consisting of individuals feeling the same as me surrounding me, a mass formed by alot of people who'd happily stone me to dead if only out of fear to be stoned themselves for disobeying the nutjobs in power...
Let's just say I hope I never come into a situation where I have to find out how I would react
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
But Tribes me saying that only exists in your head, it's a fantasy it isn't real, look what they have done to you...Actually it is you who has a very tough position to make , if something is nothing to do with Islam then it has nothing to do with Islamic culture .
I think these are your words, writing an aditional page in the sad history of epic faillure (but you never know with the imprinted)
Originally Posted by Oleander Ardens:
I didn't expect this to become a pretext of a cultural analysis, but merely a acknowledgment of flashlight on the way the female gender gets treated in an corner of Africa.
My personal thoughts on this are:
1) Traditional patriarchical society embraced and still embrace the islamical religion quite strongly, because the teachings and interpretations of the religion itself were shaped in a strictly patriachical society.
2) Traditional practices can be strongly reeinforced by religious patterns and beliefs or remodelled under the heavy influence of the specific interpretations - which still is grounded in the mainstream interpretaions of the religion.
3) So if both a strong culture and a strong religion are aligned in a social and political climate where heavy violence is accepted on a large scale terrible things can happen to somebody which is perceived to have violeted various rules.
Sadly Somalia is a dark example of it, and the girl suffered her terrible fate. We can not be certain of the exact circumstances, but must be certain that her brutal execution was a terrible crime.
P.S: If such a "mindset" is used here in Europe to punish others the state should use an iron fist and a gentle hand to treat offender and victim respectively.
Great post!I didn't expect this to become a pretext of a cultural analysis, but merely a acknowledgment of flashlight on the way the female gender gets treated in an corner of Africa.
My personal thoughts on this are:
1) Traditional patriarchical society embraced and still embrace the islamical religion quite strongly, because the teachings and interpretations of the religion itself were shaped in a strictly patriachical society.
2) Traditional practices can be strongly reeinforced by religious patterns and beliefs or remodelled under the heavy influence of the specific interpretations - which still is grounded in the mainstream interpretaions of the religion.
3) So if both a strong culture and a strong religion are aligned in a social and political climate where heavy violence is accepted on a large scale terrible things can happen to somebody which is perceived to have violeted various rules.
Sadly Somalia is a dark example of it, and the girl suffered her terrible fate. We can not be certain of the exact circumstances, but must be certain that her brutal execution was a terrible crime.
P.S: If such a "mindset" is used here in Europe to punish others the state should use an iron fist and a gentle hand to treat offender and victim respectively.
Just like communism was in practice a mask for dictatorships like the USSR, Islam is a mask for retarded tribal practices such as these. To think that Somalia became such a hellhole because of Islam is misguided, but to say that Islam and lynching women for being raped are completely unrelated is equally daft.
A wifebeating primitive belonging to a tribe that worships animals or spirits who's looking to join one of the "big" religions is more likely to convert to one that matches his existing mindset and attitude. And once a tribal community's traditions are imbedded in divine endorsement they're harder to get rid of.
Andres, that's pretty much what I've intended to say.
When you are damn desperate about the life you have, you'd crave for something good (sexual pleasure). You wouldn't mind your action 'cause there are no reasonings for you to have improved your view on life, hence your humanist perspective (Somalia throughout the history) and eventually you know that joining the mass wouldn't hurt you at all (stoning decision to clear up your mess).
Now that was the individual perspective from the insiders of the terrible incident.
***
Remember, the most dangerous weapon of all time was always on the surface of the earth: A human being with nothing to lose. And there always will be someone to push the button of that "weapon".
When you are damn desperate about the life you have, you'd crave for something good (sexual pleasure). You wouldn't mind your action 'cause there are no reasonings for you to have improved your view on life, hence your humanist perspective (Somalia throughout the history) and eventually you know that joining the mass wouldn't hurt you at all (stoning decision to clear up your mess).
Now that was the individual perspective from the insiders of the terrible incident.
Originally Posted by :
I'm pretty sure that when I would stand there in the front row, ready with a stone in my hand and looking at the 13 year old girl, that I would know for sure that what's happening, is wrong.
But would I still throw the stone at the poor girl?
You're in a mass, noone is different than the other, you got no future, blend in, throw it !I'm pretty sure that when I would stand there in the front row, ready with a stone in my hand and looking at the 13 year old girl, that I would know for sure that what's happening, is wrong.
But would I still throw the stone at the poor girl?
Originally Posted by :
However, on the other hand, in all honesty, I have to admit that I have never been hungry and desperate so I can't predict how I would react if I were part of a desperate mass that's following some nutjobs.
Here's my boy. However, on the other hand, in all honesty, I have to admit that I have never been hungry and desperate so I can't predict how I would react if I were part of a desperate mass that's following some nutjobs.
***
Remember, the most dangerous weapon of all time was always on the surface of the earth: A human being with nothing to lose. And there always will be someone to push the button of that "weapon".
The funny side of all that is that those people that condemn the germans are always the first to defend terrorists, suddenly there is such a thing as a situation, that forces people to act in a certain way instead of acting out of blind hate. These people are always the first to call someone a hypocrite.
I agree its completely hypocritical, please can you point out the hypocritical people that switched sides like you, i definetly didn't, i was defending both and was on the same side of both debates, defending the germans and defending the muslims, im not sure which leftys were on different sides of both debates i just noticed you and pj defending germans but switching sides when it came to muslims.
It amazes me how your mind seems to be mentally blocking the simple, repeated and explained fact that I never said 'all'. It's right there, in words, you can read, should be simple even for those who lost half their brain to leftist assumptions.
Whats quite funny is you are calling me stupid but infact are wrong here yourself, i will refrain from comments about stupidity as you are not a native english speaker you may not understand the difference (or you may just be being obtuse i will assume the first one though)
If i say Americans are stupid, i am making a generalisation, as i just said americans are, the all is automatically a taken unless you specifically mention it is not
quite simply
1)Americans are stupid
2) Some americans are stupid
1)Blacks are lazy
2) Some blacks are lazy
Please tell me you understand that the 1 is a generalisation and the second number 1 is a racist comment, you see how the word all is not needed to make it racist ?
both 2's are true, there are stupid americans and lazy blacks but can you not see how different the statements are ?
I have explained this already so just tell me if you don't understand what i am saying, if you just stick you fingers in your ears again and shout ¨i didn't say all!' then you are just being obtuse....
I agree its completely hypocritical, please can you point out the hypocritical people that switched sides like you, i definetly didn't, i was defending both and was on the same side of both debates, defending the germans and defending the muslims, im not sure which leftys were on different sides of both debates i just noticed you and pj defending germans but switching sides when it came to muslims.
It amazes me how your mind seems to be mentally blocking the simple, repeated and explained fact that I never said 'all'. It's right there, in words, you can read, should be simple even for those who lost half their brain to leftist assumptions.
Whats quite funny is you are calling me stupid but infact are wrong here yourself, i will refrain from comments about stupidity as you are not a native english speaker you may not understand the difference (or you may just be being obtuse i will assume the first one though)
If i say Americans are stupid, i am making a generalisation, as i just said americans are, the all is automatically a taken unless you specifically mention it is not
quite simply
1)Americans are stupid
2) Some americans are stupid
1)Blacks are lazy
2) Some blacks are lazy
Please tell me you understand that the 1 is a generalisation and the second number 1 is a racist comment, you see how the word all is not needed to make it racist ?
both 2's are true, there are stupid americans and lazy blacks but can you not see how different the statements are ?
I have explained this already so just tell me if you don't understand what i am saying, if you just stick you fingers in your ears again and shout ¨i didn't say all!' then you are just being obtuse....
Muslims are
In muslim society's
Now what words did uncle Fragony use?
indeed.
I agree its completely hypocritical, please can you point out the hypocritical people that switched sides like you
que wut? I never defended the stoning of a 13 year old girl how did I switch sides?
In muslim society's
Now what words did uncle Fragony use?
indeed.
I agree its completely hypocritical, please can you point out the hypocritical people that switched sides like you
que wut? I never defended the stoning of a 13 year old girl how did I switch sides?
Guys, please...
And this is what Africans (and hippies) call "Africa should cope with its problems alone. Europeans leave Africa".
Call me racist , call me imperialist - . .. it. 2nd half of XIX century was best time for Africa. Since fall of colonisation most of Africa falls.
Call me racist , call me imperialist - . .. it. 2nd half of XIX century was best time for Africa. Since fall of colonisation most of Africa falls.
Never thought that these people are suffering the fallout of the colonisation times, right?
I cannot blame the Islamic religion for this act any more than I can blame evangelical protestantism for Fred Phelps, or than I can blame Roman Catholicism (my own belief system) for some of the horror stories we're now hearing about Catholic sponsored orphanages in Ireland. All of which have some technical justification under the rules on the books, but all are gross miscarriages of justice, from the perspective of the vast majorities of the believers, as deliberate misinterpretations of that dogma.
I think it's a horrible, horrible story. But the Hutuus and Tutsis are mostly "Christian". Does that mean the Rwandan genocide was due to Christianity?
I don't think too many of us, even LEN, undrestand Sharia well enough to say this is congruous with the spirit of the law or not. Declaring yourself to be an expert on the intent of a legal system you do not understand makes you look like a simple-minded idiot.
I think it's a horrible, horrible story. But the Hutuus and Tutsis are mostly "Christian". Does that mean the Rwandan genocide was due to Christianity?
I don't think too many of us, even LEN, undrestand Sharia well enough to say this is congruous with the spirit of the law or not. Declaring yourself to be an expert on the intent of a legal system you do not understand makes you look like a simple-minded idiot.
And you are claiming that it was Whites who taught them to stone children?
Originally Posted by KrooK:
And you are claiming that it was Whites who taught them to stone children?
Did you read LEN's other posts in this thread, in particular the one I quoted 10 posts ago?And you are claiming that it was Whites who taught them to stone children?
There you will find LEN's opinion on this sad event.
Originally Posted by KrooK:
2nd half of XIX century was best time for Africa.
Yep - those were the times2nd half of XIX century was best time for Africa.
(EDIT: I would have added this as well - but technically it is of course not 19th century anymore...)
http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-.../dp/0618001905
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?...africa&x=0&y=0
^- Krook read up
Hardly any fun
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?...africa&x=0&y=0
^- Krook read up
Hardly any fun
Now what words did uncle Fragony use?
indeed.
ok fine lets look at your words, page 1 of this thread
No I think it's quite safe to attribute it to the muslim faith,
As safe as it is to attribute the holocaust to christianity or germanness ?
If no, inconsistent, if yes then fair enough your consistent but i have to disagree
Damn backroom does not show up in search results!!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=18 (from this link)
But I don't want a muslim president for the same reason I don't want a nazi president
So simply being a muslim is the equivelent of being a nazi?!
and you see nothing wrong with this statement ?!
What if i said i didn't want a white president for the same reason i don't want a nazi president
Hell whites have caused plenty of desruction, and contain the top 2 all time killers... Hitler and Stalin, so theres a good supporting argument there (like theres a good supporting argument about muslims to do with terrorism and sexism ect.) but no amount of supporting arguments change the fact that my statement about not wanting a white president for same reason i don't want a nazi president is a racist statement...
do you see my statement about a white president as racist ?
I will point out that you did say later in the post that most muslims are good, so fair play there...
indeed.
ok fine lets look at your words, page 1 of this thread
No I think it's quite safe to attribute it to the muslim faith,
As safe as it is to attribute the holocaust to christianity or germanness ?
If no, inconsistent, if yes then fair enough your consistent but i have to disagree
Damn backroom does not show up in search results!!
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=18 (from this link)
But I don't want a muslim president for the same reason I don't want a nazi president
So simply being a muslim is the equivelent of being a nazi?!
and you see nothing wrong with this statement ?!
What if i said i didn't want a white president for the same reason i don't want a nazi president
Hell whites have caused plenty of desruction, and contain the top 2 all time killers... Hitler and Stalin, so theres a good supporting argument there (like theres a good supporting argument about muslims to do with terrorism and sexism ect.) but no amount of supporting arguments change the fact that my statement about not wanting a white president for same reason i don't want a nazi president is a racist statement...
do you see my statement about a white president as racist ?
I will point out that you did say later in the post that most muslims are good, so fair play there...
Yeah so? I thought we had already established that there is a certain degree sexual inequality and suspicion in the muslim faith? Am I making that up?
And if I say that I don't want a muslim president for the same reason I don't want a nazi president, ok I can understand the confusion should have added communist as well. I hate totalitarism,
And if I say that I don't want a muslim president for the same reason I don't want a nazi president, ok I can understand the confusion should have added communist as well. I hate totalitarism,
I thought we had already established that there is a certain degree sexual inequality and suspicion in the muslim faith?
Ok firstly not sure what you mean by suspicion, but yes there is sexual inequality in most muslim societys, and there is sexual inequality in the islamic religion but there is in christianity as well, and i assume you wouldn't not vote for a christian for this reason, so it must be to do with muslim societys right ?
there is a certain degree of racism in america, would that stop you from ever voting for an american ?
there is a certain degree of slaughtering innocents, sexism, racism and ignorance in the land dominated by blacks (africa) would that stop you voting for a black man ?
The fact that theres sexual inequality is most muslim states is no reason to generalise muslims... theres sexual ineqaulity and lots of other bad things in most backward states
Ok serious question now, not just trying to catch you out but im genuinely curious...
Lets go back sometime to when pretty much the whole world was sexist and had plenty of other problems...
Hypothetically there is some muslim state which is like our modern day democracys in the west, a muslim voter is having a discussion with his friend and states "i would never vote for a christian" (because of all the backwards christian states and christian individuals he is assuming all christians are about sexual inequality ect.) would his statement be a fair one, or would it be an unfair generalisation of christians ?
Ok firstly not sure what you mean by suspicion, but yes there is sexual inequality in most muslim societys, and there is sexual inequality in the islamic religion but there is in christianity as well, and i assume you wouldn't not vote for a christian for this reason, so it must be to do with muslim societys right ?
there is a certain degree of racism in america, would that stop you from ever voting for an american ?
there is a certain degree of slaughtering innocents, sexism, racism and ignorance in the land dominated by blacks (africa) would that stop you voting for a black man ?
The fact that theres sexual inequality is most muslim states is no reason to generalise muslims... theres sexual ineqaulity and lots of other bad things in most backward states
Ok serious question now, not just trying to catch you out but im genuinely curious...
Lets go back sometime to when pretty much the whole world was sexist and had plenty of other problems...
Hypothetically there is some muslim state which is like our modern day democracys in the west, a muslim voter is having a discussion with his friend and states "i would never vote for a christian" (because of all the backwards christian states and christian individuals he is assuming all christians are about sexual inequality ect.) would his statement be a fair one, or would it be an unfair generalisation of christians ?
The fact that theres sexual inequality is most muslim states is no reason to generalise muslims... theres sexual ineqaulity and lots of other bad things in most backward states
It's not a generalisation it's an observation, if it is what it is what's your problem.
It's not a generalisation it's an observation, if it is what it is what's your problem.
It's not a generalisation it's an observation, if it is what it is what's your problem.
Look basically you stated you would not vote for a muslim president, when asked why you put it down to sexual inequality in muslim countrys, i can only put this down to a few things...
1) because some muslims don't believe in sexual eqaulity none of them do, which is a generalisation
2) you refuse to vote for someone who believes in the same religion that people who believe in sexual eqaulity believe in, which isn't true because im sure you would vote for a christian candidate
I may have got confused, you gave totalarinism as a reason as well, that actually fits the examples even better, and is so obviously rubbish, look at turkey
1) because muslim countrys are mostly ruled by totalitarians all muslims must be totalitarian, generalisation
2) because muslim countrys are mostly ruled by totalitarians all muslims must have totalitarian tendancys, generalisation
3) you refuse to vote for someone who shares a religion with people who are totalitarians, well thats simply not true as you would vote for a christian and there are christians who are totalitarian...
So basically unless there is some other meaning (or you didn't now christians were totalitarian as well) your statement is a generalisation
and what about my hypothetical question... i really am curious....
Hypothetically there is some muslim state which is like our modern day democracys in the west, a muslim voter is having a discussion with his friend and states "i would never vote for a christian" (because of all the backwards christian states and christian individuals he is assuming all christians are about sexual inequality and totalitarianism ect.) would his statement be a fair one, or would it be an unfair generalisation of christians ?
Look basically you stated you would not vote for a muslim president, when asked why you put it down to sexual inequality in muslim countrys, i can only put this down to a few things...
1) because some muslims don't believe in sexual eqaulity none of them do, which is a generalisation
2) you refuse to vote for someone who believes in the same religion that people who believe in sexual eqaulity believe in, which isn't true because im sure you would vote for a christian candidate
I may have got confused, you gave totalarinism as a reason as well, that actually fits the examples even better, and is so obviously rubbish, look at turkey
1) because muslim countrys are mostly ruled by totalitarians all muslims must be totalitarian, generalisation
2) because muslim countrys are mostly ruled by totalitarians all muslims must have totalitarian tendancys, generalisation
3) you refuse to vote for someone who shares a religion with people who are totalitarians, well thats simply not true as you would vote for a christian and there are christians who are totalitarian...
So basically unless there is some other meaning (or you didn't now christians were totalitarian as well) your statement is a generalisation
and what about my hypothetical question... i really am curious....
Hypothetically there is some muslim state which is like our modern day democracys in the west, a muslim voter is having a discussion with his friend and states "i would never vote for a christian" (because of all the backwards christian states and christian individuals he is assuming all christians are about sexual inequality and totalitarianism ect.) would his statement be a fair one, or would it be an unfair generalisation of christians ?
Unfair but understandable, as for the president, you found the quote so you should be able to find my argumentation.
Unfair but understandable
Ok i can respect that, but do you think his statement is a generalisation of christians ?
as for the president, you found the quote so you should be able to find my argumentation.
ok, here is the reasoning...
it's a sick religion that has brought nothing other then misery and death at worst and backwardness at best.
I think you could apply that comment to religion in general, christianity has plenty of blood and misery on its hands even today, and even in developed societies you'll have christians who don't believe in dinosaurs... so i don't really see why you should not want a muslim president any less than a christian one...
Ok i can respect that, but do you think his statement is a generalisation of christians ?
as for the president, you found the quote so you should be able to find my argumentation.
ok, here is the reasoning...
it's a sick religion that has brought nothing other then misery and death at worst and backwardness at best.
I think you could apply that comment to religion in general, christianity has plenty of blood and misery on its hands even today, and even in developed societies you'll have christians who don't believe in dinosaurs... so i don't really see why you should not want a muslim president any less than a christian one...
That is how a pretty much feel about the islam(ism) yes, and difficulties in foreign affairs because of overblown expectations, in the dutch case double nationality, and the fact that it is a religion and a political system. And no that wouldn't be a generalisation of christians.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO