Religion Thread

Bromden said:

The "Islamic children suffer more" is your line, I didn't claim that.

Click to expand...

Bromden said:

He should convince me with logic and reason, and not trying to make me feel that children in the Islamic world suffer more than those that get shot in their schools.

Click to expand...

Uhh, yeah, as Moose just pointed out, I've only ever quoted that from you. That's what made me reply with "... wat". I can quote the whole exchange for you if you'd like...

I'm not putting words in your mouth.

See? That's what happens when someone's arguments are tiring.

Bromden said:

He should convince me with logic and reason, and not trying to make me feel that children in the Islamic world suffer more than those that get shot in their schools.

Click to expand...

So there's no

Magorian Aximand said:

quote where he claims that

Click to expand...

And I already

Magorian Aximand said:

explain(ed) how showing emotion about the topic the article is about implies that children suffer more in those circumstances than any that we're not actually analyzed or addressed in any fashion during the article.

Click to expand...

You know, non-existence of emotions in the first half, and sudden emergence of it at Islam, also the "it's not our fault" stance with the school shooters, and "it's our responsibility" with the arabs.

Please note that naming all types of violent actors so you can be clear about which one you are speaking does not entail analyzing or addressing any of the ones mentioned which are not the actor in question, and that showing you care about one topic when addressing that topic doens't mean you don't care about other topics mentioned or tell anyone anything you think about those topics. Only actually addressing those topics could do that...

Click to expand...

Please note that he analyzed pretty well the psychopaths too, and it's an important part of the writing, even if you claim otherwise.

Apropos, please do tell, why is proximity a bull**** reason for not caring about islamic violence? Why should I feel bad for something that I can't change and has zero impact on my everyday life? **** is everywhere, it's forcing itself on me all the time, and I don't want to pick up and carry an extra bucketful of distant **** voluntarily.

Bromden said:

Apropos, please do tell, why is proximity a bull**** reason for not caring about islamic violence? Why should I feel bad for something that I can't change and has zero impact on my everyday life? **** is everywhere, it's forcing itself on me all the time, and I don't want to pick up and carry an extra bucketful of distant **** voluntarily.

Click to expand...

I agree with Bromden on that. It may seem harsh or unpleasant(relatively speaking), but it's the truth.

Sorry about the delay in replying. Busy few days.

Bromden said:

See? That's what happens when someone's arguments are tiring.

Bromden said:

He should convince me with logic and reason, and not trying to make me feel that children in the Islamic world suffer more than those that get shot in their schools.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Again, he's not. He's not trying to make you feel that children in the Islamic world suffer more. There was no confusion here.

Bromden said:

And I already

Magorian Aximand said:

explain(ed) how showing emotion about the topic the article is about implies that children suffer more in those circumstances than any that we're not actually analyzed or addressed in any fashion during the article.

Click to expand...

You know, non-existence of emotions in the first half, and sudden emergence of it at Islam, also the "it's not our fault" stance with the school shooters, and "it's our responsibility" with the arabs.

Click to expand...

And I addressed this. And he never takes an "it's not our fault" stance with school shooters. What he argues with religious violence is that it should be viewed as what it is, and not excused as one of the other types of violence. That we shouldn't deny that it even exists when it so clearly does.

You still haven't given any reason to think that Sam is trying to make you feel like people harmed by one of these violent actors suffers any more or less than any other.

Bromden said:

Please note that naming all types of violent actors so you can be clear about which one you are speaking does not entail analyzing or addressing any of the ones mentioned which are not the actor in question, and that showing you care about one topic when addressing that topic doens't mean you don't care about other topics mentioned or tell anyone anything you think about those topics. Only actually addressing those topics could do that...

Click to expand...

Please note that he analyzed pretty well the psychopaths too, and it's an important part of the writing, even if you claim otherwise.

Click to expand...

He described the type of violent actor, and in no more detail than any other. And this was done so that he could make the point of the article: that we shouldn't deny the existence of those who are moved by ideology to waste their lives in extraordinary ways while doing intolerable harm to others in the process.

Bromden said:

Apropos, please do tell, why is proximity a bull**** reason for not caring about islamic violence? Why should I feel bad for something that I can't change and has zero impact on my everyday life? **** is everywhere, it's forcing itself on me all the time, and I don't want to pick up and carry an extra bucketful of distant **** voluntarily.

Click to expand...

How close you happen to be to a problem doesn't change how much of a problem it actually is, or how accurate Sam's assessment of the problem (that people deny such religious violence even exists) actually is. Sure, the things that directly affect you have a higher priority for you, but it's horribly callous to simply not care about the suffering of others because it isn't happening to you, and simply foolish to use that as an argument against an article that is highlighting what is a very real problem for a great many people.

I say I feel he is implying something, you say he's not, and we both have the same amount of evidence for it (0). That's like the fourth circle we are running. It's getting boring.

Yes, children are dying. They always did, and always will. The most I can do in my current situation against that is that I don't kill children. I have empathy, and I try to put it in the right places. These places are in my reach, and not on the TV or the internet. Islam is not my war. But what do I know, I just might be horribly callous.

Bromden said:

I try to put it my **** in the right places. These places are in my reach, and not on the TV or the internet. But what do I know, I just might be horribly callous.

Click to expand...

Somehow the message gets funny when my tired mine replaced that.

Sadly that way it wouldn't be correct. My **** needs the internet.

But it doesn't need to be on the internet. Surely.

Oh in. Damn I need sleep.

Bromden said:

I say I feel he is implying something, you say he's not, and we both have the same amount of evidence for it (0). That's like the fourth circle we are running. It's getting boring.

Yes, children are dying. They always did, and always will. The most I can do in my current situation against that is that I don't kill children. I have empathy, and I try to put it in the right places. These places are in my reach, and not on the TV or the internet. Islam is not my war. But what do I know, I just might be horribly callous.

Click to expand...

Put it this way. If you wrote an article about school shootings and mental health and my reply was, "Why nothing about religious violence in the middle east? I don't live near any schools, so the fact that you care about these kids means you're just pushing propaganda at me. Clearly, you're implying that children shot in schools suffer more than those attacked by the Taliban." just how insane would you think I was?

The thing is, I do have evidence that he's not making that implication. I've actually understood what the article is about, and you've demonstrated that you don't every time you try to claim that when he identifies the four kinds of violent actors he is actually analyzing all of the problems caused by those violent actors. But more importantly, you haven't explained how showing emotion about one topic even could imply that Sam is trying to make you feel as though those children suffer more than others. As I've said, the best you could do is claim that it implies that Sam cares more about this topic than others, at least there's a possible line of thought there, but even that would be spurious.

I don't want a round five. This thing is dead tired.

It wouldn't be tired if you'd try explaining how showing emotion about the topic of the article could imply what you claim it does. Because I'm confident that it can't. Or how the classification of the violent actors represents a significant analysis of what those actors do.

In other words, it wouldn't be tired if you took the time to support your claims, rather than repeat them.

My claim was that I feel that the article has a propaganda effect because of the way of emotions were used. I feel like it means I don't know the intentions behind the article, only the effect it has on me. On how emotions could imply what I claim, it's because emotions could be used as a rethorical tool to enhance a certain viewpoint. I don't claim that the author is an anti-Islamist nazi propaganda machine. What I know about him is that he is an atheist, or at least anti-religion thinker, and as such he probably uses reason in his thinking. Maybe at the time when he wrote the article he was all worked up on the topic, and that's why it feels to me that there's some anti-Islamist fervor mixed into the reason.

That's nice.

Now go post in Werewolf.

But Magorian almost depleted my monthly word count already.

Edit: I forgot the conclusion of my yesternight rant. So: if you consider your main tool being reason, you shouldn't let yourself driven by emotions when expressing yourself to the public. That was the author's mistake.

I thought Star Trek Vulcans were imaginary.

Bromden said:

My claim was that I feel that the article has a propaganda effect because of the way of emotions were used. I feel like it means I don't know the intentions behind the article, only the effect it has on me. On how emotions could imply what I claim, it's because emotions could be used as a rethorical tool to enhance a certain viewpoint. I don't claim that the author is an anti-Islamist nazi propaganda machine. What I know about him is that he is an atheist, or at least anti-religion thinker, and as such he probably uses reason in his thinking. Maybe at the time when he wrote the article he was all worked up on the topic, and that's why it feels to me that there's some anti-Islamist fervor mixed into the reason.

Click to expand...

I think that expressing one's emotions is perfectly appropriate here, and even further - it's ETHICAL. Those people are in need of serious help. For the most part, women in islamic societies are second-class citizens. Harris wants to help them, naturally, and expose flaws in Islam's doctrine, so emotions are clearly a very natural part of the process here. It's indeed a way to enhance the message, and there's a very good reason for it - the problems are real and they need to be addressed. I can see how you feel that it's like a propaganda flier, but really, think about what kind of a problem it is to all those people. Don't you think that's worth caring about? Don't you think that's worth writing about with passion and emotion? It's not like we should abandon emotions upon choosing reason as our banner.

I think that school shooters and other local murderers worth the same caring about, and in the article they don't get any passion and love.

You shouldn't unfairly expect Harris to mention something like that in the article, because that's not its topic. But if I can take your silence as a yes, then you're agreeing with me on that the emotion he showed actually wasn't a problem?

Das Knecht said:

I think that expressing one's emotions is perfectly appropriate here, and even further - it's ETHICAL. Those people are in need of serious help. For the most part, women in islamic societies are second-class citizens. Harris wants to help them, naturally, and expose flaws in Islam's doctrine, so emotions are clearly a very natural part of the process here. It's indeed a way to enhance the message, and there's a very good reason for it - the problems are real and they need to be addressed. I can see how you feel that it's like a propaganda flier, but really, think about what kind of a problem it is to all those people. Don't you think that's worth caring about? Don't you think that's worth writing about with passion and emotion? It's not like we should abandon emotions upon choosing reason as our banner.

Click to expand...

It would be great if there was actually something backing up the emotion in his article, but it's literally just emotion. He does not do a single thing to support any of the unfounded assertions he makes in the article.