Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[10571z]

If you speak to them, they could tell you they're perfectly okay with LBGTQI+ people and support increased rights for women; that might, in fact, be why they're here and not in their own country. They could also be lying through their teeth, which is where their thoughts become involved: you have no way to guarantee that your assumption concerning islamic homophobia/sexism is true or false without reading theirs or anyone else's mind.

You need to realise that the government cannot treat every muslim as archetypical, or you're asking the government to profile based on your assumptions of their beliefs.

To quote Benjimen again, any rule that fails to hold true in the most extreme of scenarios is an unworthwhile rule, and - as stated - @10751z's going to be butting their head up against that extreme whether they like it or not.

You responded here:

... so I replied, justifying the jump.

The left preach a tolerant progressive society with equality for the LGBT community and Equality for females.. then tell everyone to be tolerant of a religion that has a horrendous track record about both issues and are some how perplexed at why there is a strong push against it.

 

[Gethelred]

Progressives preach a tolerant progressive society with equality for the LGBT community and Equality for females..

Fixed that for you.

I mean, I only mentioned it before. Progressives =/= lefties. Malcolm Turnbull is a right wing progressive. Malcolm Fraiser was an example of a right wing progressive in terms of how he treated refugees.

A leftie is as capable of being precisely as racist and homophobic as a right winger is. I really don't see why this is so controversial to you.

... then tell everyone to be tolerant of a religion that has a horrendous track record about both issues and are some how perplexed at why there is a strong push against it.

...

It's the right to practice your religion to the extent that it doesn't impinge upon other people's rights in their own lives.

That's also not a left/right thing, or even a progressive/conservative thing. It's a position for and against societal freedom, liberal vs illiberalism, which is another diametry I pointed out above.

Are you sure you've read the posts you're quoting?

This isn't even hypocrisy, let alone from lefties or progressives. Liberals - people who believe in a level of freedom within society at the range of what doesn't impinge upon their rights to life, safety, privacy, love, religion etc - will always push back against the attempted restriction of rights by government or individuals. It's completely consistent.

I'm still stuck on just how... poorly you have to misread the people you're arguing with to arrive at the original argument, the one you've restated above in the quoted post. You don't know what they think or believe, how they're positioned; you've essentially created a really shitty strawman and cobbled together a barely inconsistent thing (which you've labelled hypocrisy) and stuck it to it.

And then you've proceeded to go on and try and defend it, despite it being really, really stupid. It's a waste of your time; why do this when you could make a good argument?

My side of this is plenty explicable: we - lefties, progressives, liberals all do it, but liberals absolutely crave this stuff - love dunking on shit arguments. It's both spectator sport and intellectual superiority rolled into one; we get to 'well, actually' against someone we disagree with and feel good about ourselves while we do it. What I don't get is what you're getting out of it.

You're not accomplishing anything. You're not winning; you've been in full retreat across a series of posts now, to the point you're restating your OG point as though it were groundbreaking. You're giving me what I want, a shit argument to dissect. What is in this exchange for you?

You've not proven anyone hypocritical. You've kind of demonstrated that your understanding is shallow. It's at this point of this conversation that I'm usually out, because this feels like punching down.

 

[10571z]

Fixed that for you.

I mean, I only mentioned it before. Progressives =/= lefties. Malcolm Turnbull is a right wing progressive. Malcolm Fraiser was an example of a right wing progressive in terms of how he treated refugees.

A leftie is as capable of being precisely as racist and homophobic as a right winger is. I really don't see why this is so controversial to you.

...

It's the right to practice your religion to the extent that it doesn't impinge upon other people's rights in their own lives.

That's also not a left/right thing, or even a progressive/conservative thing. It's a position for and against societal freedom, liberal vs illiberalism, which is another diametry I pointed out above.

Are you sure you've read the posts you're quoting?

This isn't even hypocrisy, let alone from lefties or progressives. Liberals - people who believe in a level of freedom within society at the range of what doesn't impinge upon their rights to life, safety, privacy, love, religion etc - will always push back against the attempted restriction of rights by government or individuals. It's completely consistent.

I'm still stuck on just how... poorly you have to misread the people you're arguing with to arrive at the original argument, the one you've restated above in the quoted post. You don't know what they think or believe, how they're positioned; you've essentially created a really shitty strawman and cobbled together a barely inconsistent thing (which you've labelled hypocrisy) and stuck it to it.

And then you've proceeded to go on and try and defend it, despite it being really, really stupid. It's a waste of your time; why do this when you could make a good argument?

My side of this is plenty explicable: we - lefties, progressives, liberals all do it, but liberals absolutely crave this stuff - love dunking on shit arguments. It's both spectator sport and intellectual superiority rolled into one; we get to 'well, actually' against someone we disagree with and feel good about ourselves while we do it. What I don't get is what you're getting out of it.

You're not accomplishing anything. You're not winning; you've been in full retreat across a series of posts now, to the point you're restating your OG point as though it were groundbreaking. You're giving me what I want, a shit argument to dissect. What is in this exchange for you?

You've not proven anyone hypocritical. You've kind of demonstrated that your understanding is shallow. It's at this point of this conversation that I'm usually out, because this feels like punching down.

Im not in full retreat at all. Its a shit argument if your eyes but as we see across Europe people are consistently changing their tune to agree.

 

[Gethelred]

Im not in full retreat at all. Its a shit argument if your eyes...

'In', in your eyes. It's also 'I'm', or 'I am'.

Slow down, take a breath. You've time for proper grammar.

... but as we see across Europe people are consistently changing their tune to agree.

... dude, your argument sucks, and what you're seeing in Europe is too complex a situation to be depicted in so basic a fashion, let alone be roped into this particular brand of nonsense.

This feels like kicking down now.

 

[carltonchelsea]

I didn't make a claim to truth like your friend Gralin did - which he refuses to provide evidence for btw.

It's always 'white people bad' with you guys. Your self-hatred is nauseating.

Gralin didn’t make the claim it was neo Nazis, just that they’d been discluded in the possibilities, or self inflicted in their own interests.
I made the same point to friends in conversation and they all stood there stupefied, “oh yeah, never thought of that”.
“Of course not, you want to blame a certain group because that’s what the news tells you to believe”.

 

[sr36]

The left preach a tolerant progressive society with equality for the LGBT community and Equality for females.. then tell everyone to be tolerant of a religion that has a horrendous track record about both issues and are some how perplexed at why there is a strong push against it.

In the name of tolerance, you think progressives should be opposed to 25% of the planet based on their religious affiliation? Do you get the concept of acceptance and tolerance?

What you see as a contradiction is quite simply your inability to see beyond individual issues to underlying concepts.

 

[evolved2]

If you speak to them, they could tell you they're perfectly okay with LBGTQI+ people and support increased rights for women; that might, in fact, be why they're here and not in their own country. They could also be lying through their teeth, which is where their thoughts become involved: you have no way to guarantee that your assumption concerning islamic homophobia/sexism is true or false without reading theirs or anyone else's mind.

Has any survey shown that to be true?

The willingness of progressives to align themselves with Islam is baffling to me.

 

[Gethelred]

Has any survey shown that to be true?

The willingness of progressives to align themselves with Islam is baffling to me.

Again: it's not a progressive thing to be in favour of freedom of religion. I'd also like to note that you yourself benefit from that freedom, because only going back 100 or so years being an open atheist would've resulted in... mistreatment from the larger, more pugnacious, christian establishment.

I'd also rather like you to indicate that you've followed the conversation, because I'd really rather not return to the opening clinches again just because you weren't present for rounds 1 and 2.

 

[evolved2]

Again: it's not a progressive thing to be in favour of freedom of religion.

I presume that's a typo.

I'd also like to note that you yourself benefit from that freedom, because only going back 100 or so years being an open atheist would've resulted in... mistreatment from the larger, more pugnacious, christian establishment.

Yes, 100 years ago.

It's a different world in modern Australia. The Christians have been tamed, though a foot needs to be kept on their collective throats.

Our current level of freedom does not exist in any Islamic nation, even today.

What happened to being intolerant towards the intolerant?

I'd also rather like you to indicate that you've followed the conversation, because I'd really rather not return to the opening clinches again just because you weren't present for rounds 1 and 2.

I've read through, but no promises. I'll leave it to your decision as to whether to respond, ignore, or ban.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its probably progressive to kick religions the hell out of government.

I wonder how Australia's constitution would hold up if there were enough numbers to impose religious based laws.

 

[evolved2]

Its probably progressive to kick religions the hell out of government.

I wonder how Australia's constitution would hold up if there were enough numbers to impose religious based laws.

An entirely secular government should be the epitome of progressive ideals.

 

[sr36]

An entirely secular government should be the epitome of progressive ideals.

The government is secular in Australia, but if you're referring to some type of banning of MPs with religious affiliations, or disallowing religious voices in debate, that's not secular or democratic. That's an oppressive atheist regime.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The government is secular in Australia, but if you're referring to some type of banning of MPs with religious affiliations, or disallowing religious voices in debate, that's not secular or democratic. That's an oppressive atheist regime.

There are constitutional barriers to forcing religion onto people, but if a religious party gained power, they could probably introduce laws forcing holidays ( like Christmas and Easter lol ) , or banning things , such as alcohol or certain media.

 

[evolved2]

The government is secular in Australia, but if you're referring to some type of banning of MPs with religious affiliations, or disallowing religious voices in debate, that's not secular or democratic. That's an oppressive atheist regime.

A truly secular government allows freedom to practice while favoring no religion.

I wouldn't ban any PM from practicing their religion of choice. I'd tighten the filter at the border though.

Islam is a horrible religion. While we don't see eye to eye on that point, it will be a huge consideration at the next election for me.

 

[sr36]

There are constitutional barriers to forcing religion onto people, but if a religious party gained power, they could probably introduce laws forcing holidays ( like Christmas and Easter lol ) , or banning things , such as alcohol or certain media.

As could an atheist government.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

As could an atheist government.

True but the illogical stuff could be less likely.
For example, a Muslim based party might increase taxes on pork farming or make a law that allows loud calls to prayer.
( All hypothetical ).
I don't think our constitution would stop such things ( and if that party got in, we'd probably have a lot supporting it anyway ).

 

[evolved2]

As could an atheist government.

An atheist government is a dream. Sign me up.

 

[Carringbush2010]

There are constitutional barriers to forcing religion onto people, but if a religious party gained power, they could probably introduce laws forcing holidays ( like Christmas and Easter lol ) , or banning things , such as alcohol or certain media.

As could an atheist government.

Neither a religious or an atheist party would gain power to govern in a liberal democracy because neither would be truly liberal imo.

An atheist party would likely use parliament / politics to oppose religion. A religious party would likely use the same platform to campaign for their religion.

liberals are imo the truly inclusive and tolerant regardless, or liberal if you will.

 

[evolved2]

Neither a religious or an atheist party would gain power to govern in a liberal democracy because neither would be truly liberal imo.

An atheist party would likely use parliament / politics to oppose religion. A religious party would likely use the same platform to campaign for their religion.

liberals are imo the truly inclusive and tolerant regardless, or liberal if you will.

Most atheists don't care about religion.

All we ask is that believers play by the same rules as the rest of us.

 

[Gethelred]

I presume that's a typo.

Nope. Progressives tend to be liberals, but that's largely because early efforts in the direction of liberalism won over total monarchy a very long time ago.

Yes, 100 years ago.

It's a different world in modern Australia. The Christians have been tamed, though a foot needs to be kept on their collective throats.

... all of which does not detract from the fact that due to the efforts of liberalism, you have the right to be protected from the pyres of previous generations. Don't attack the freedom, and you will continue to reap its benefits.

Our current level of freedom does not exist in any Islamic nation, even today.

We're not in an Islamic nation, nor will muslims achieve enough of a majority to begin changing society to reflect Islam or to institute Sharia law, nor do most of them even want that in the first place.

If they wanted Sharia law, wtf are they doing here, and why would they choose to move here???

What happened to being intolerant towards the intolerant?

Hmm...

That's certainly an interesting flip. I could respond a myriad of ways, consistency is the obsession of small minds being one of them. We live within a capitalist democracy; an egalitarian system demanding that all remain equal existing within a hierarchical structure with power and resources collecting at the top. These two are not in tension so much as in active passive opposition; you're going to be hypocritical to jump through those hoops.

But then, I've also said that the paradox of tolerance extends IMO to Nazism and fascism rather than other ideologies. Fundamentalist - Wahhabist - Islam has any number of criticisms that can be thrown in its direction, but it does not seek to infiltrate other movements the way Nazism does or fascists do.

 

[evolved2]

We're not in an Islamic nation, nor will muslims achieve enough of a majority to begin changing society to reflect Islam or to institute Sharia law, nor do most of them even want that in the first place.

If they wanted Sharia law, wtf are they doing here, and why would they choose to move here???

I'd say they move here for freedom and will push Islamic ideals on society regardless.

It's a Trojan horse even if unintended.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Most atheists don't care about religion.

All we ask is that believers play by the same rules as the rest of us.

I'm not talking about most atheists, I'm talking about an atheist party, likely much more passionate about opposing religion than your Jan and Joe public atheist.

Whatever you wanna call it, I don't see a point or need for an atheist party if there gonna do next to nothing in parliament OR staunchly oppose religion or ban things like Christmas and Easter which has been alluded, because that'd be illiberal and most atheists are liberal and would not likely support campaigning of that.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'd say they move here for freedom and will push Islamic ideals on society regardless.

It's a Trojan horse even if unintended.

I wouldn't say 'push', it is expression allowed by our liberal society. They're not here to 'change our way of life'

Our society by and large is inclusive of it, that's why they moved here, freedom and freedom of expression.

And the bulk of society that are not muslim / islamic don't have a problem with it or are opposed to their freedom / freedom of expression.

A trojan horse is intended, it's not a 'woopsy we've collectively infiltrated you, we didn't mean it, soz about that'.

 

[evolved2]

I'm not talking about most atheists, I'm talking about an atheist party, likely much more passionate about opposing religion than your Jan and Joe public atheist.

Whatever you wanna call it, I don't see a point or need for an atheist party if there gonna do next to nothing in parliament OR staunchly oppose religion or ban things like Christmas and Easter which has been alluded, because that'd be illiberal and most atheists are liberal and would not likely support campaigning of that.

An atheistic party would only be created to defy and parody theism. I see no other motive.

That's the entire point of Laveyan Satanism.

 

[evolved2]

I wouldn't say 'push', it is expression allowed by our liberal society. They're not here to 'change our way of life'

Our society by and large is inclusive of it, that's why they moved here, freedom and freedom of expression.

And the bulk of society that are not muslim / islamic don't have a problem with it or are opposed to their freedom / freedom of expression.

A trojan horse is intended, it's not a 'woopsy we've collectively infiltrated you, we didn't mean it, soz about that'.

Unintended by progressives for sure. Is that enough reason to call it a trojan horse?