Jordan Peterson Is Canada's Most Infamous Intellectual - General

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;53119023]What?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=J!NX;53119025]Can you post where/when he said this?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119032]god i dont like h3h3 but do you mind providing context for this? feels incredibly like a fuckin "haha i heard a thing from some guy and thus i know the entire story" situation ethan presents himself as an intellectual and yesmans people on his podcast, hes trying to do a howard stern/joe rogan thing but finds it hard to present his own arguments, adding people who are controversial but also well spoken just makes his podcast more legitimate if you think hes secretly a jew nazi then at least provide proper reasoning[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=LuaChobo;53119045]also can we please get context on this? id rather not let someone just dump something like this then escape without backing it up[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;l65hR94nfqY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7554&v=l65hR94nfqY[/video] To paraphrase: [QUOTE]Dresden was firebombed two days after Nazis surrendered Just a historical civilian city. 300,000 civilians killed. Pure villainy History is written by victors.[/QUOTE] Admittedly, it's just him being very, very uninformed about history, but he shouldn't be making such claims and calling it a "true story." 6 million people watched it and they will probably continue to perpetuate the myths that Nazi propaganda wrote and Slaughterhouse 5 empowered.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;53119084]That's because you have a [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585937&p=52899064&viewfull=1#post52899064"]personal vendetta[/URL] against him for something that he didn't do, and which was entirely your boyfriend's poor life decision. And which stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of his views on depression.[/QUOTE] Overzealous and angry certainly, personal vendetta, yeah I'll take it. I'll even accept the depression thing as a mistake. He's still wrong and his views are harmful and I have plenty more where those posts came from.

[QUOTE=cbb;53119098]Why does it matter how the founder of the religion acted? There's little evidence that Jesus even existed to begin with. Both Christianity and Islam are derived from Abrahamic Judaism. Their ideas are not original.[/QUOTE] Oh [I]please[/I] can you [B]not[/B] perpetuate the absolutely retarded "Jesus didn't exist" myth? [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/5zhkvd/ratheism_is_still_in_the_christ_myth_camp/"]The overwhelming majority of historians of a variety of beliefs agree that Jesus did exist.[/URL]

[QUOTE=cbb;53119155]Can you explain how it is important?[/quote]They are both examples of the ideal christian/muslim and fundamental to both the bible and the koran. In the case of mohammed the koran literally calls him the ideal example of a man. [quote]I would expect that 1st and 2nd generation Muslim immigrants would be more fundamentalist than Christians. You can see from this graph that the 2nd generation is noticeably less fundamentalist than the 1st. Doesn't that seem to speak to my argument that the violence in Islam is more a result of your geographical location rather than the religion itself?[/quote] I‘d argue that it‘s mainly younger migrants becoming more secular, despite their religion. [quote]I'm not sure I understand the difference.[/QUOTE] Political Islam comes with it‘s own set of laws and can in a way be considered an ideology in itself.

[QUOTE=Darth Ninja;53119084]That's because you have a [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585937&p=52899064&viewfull=1#post52899064"]personal vendetta[/URL] against him for something that he didn't do, and which was entirely your boyfriend's poor life decision. And which stemmed from a fundamental misunderstanding of his views on depression.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what this does to further conversation or address the points brought up other than to be a bit dickish about a personal situation.

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;53119178]I'm not sure what this does to further conversation or address the points brought up other than to be a bit dickish about a personal situation.[/QUOTE] This conversation is all about other people in the exact same way though. If you want to call someone a shitty person you can't be all "whoah hey now that's not fair" when someone brings up shit from [i]your[/i] past to show your biases.

[QUOTE=Fayez;53119169]Oh [I]please[/I] can you [B]not[/B] perpetuate the absolutely retarded "Jesus didn't exist" myth? [URL="https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/5zhkvd/ratheism_is_still_in_the_christ_myth_camp/"]The overwhelming majority of historians of a variety of beliefs agree that Jesus did exist.[/URL][/QUOTE] I haven't seen any strong evidence but I'll immediately concede this. It's not important to my argument so I'll just default to whatever the consensus among historians is. [QUOTE=Niklas;53119170]They are both examples of the ideal christian/muslim and fundamental to both the bible and the koran. In the case of mohammed this idea of the ideal man is literally the case, you can not criticize him.[/QUOTE] Christians don't adhere to Jesus or the bibles teachings so why do you expect Muslims will follow the teachings of Muhammad and the Quran? God's word is absolute in both religions. [QUOTE]I‘d argue that it‘s mainly younger migrants becoming more secular, despite their religion.[/QUOTE] Yes that's exactly my point. Muslims raised in the West are becoming more secular just like Christians have in recent history. This points to Islam not being inherently violent and fundamentalist. [QUOTE]Political Islam comes with it‘s own set of laws and can in a way be considered an ideology in itself.[/QUOTE] Religion itself can be considered an ideology so this distinction doesn't seem particularly meaningful. Christianity is still plenty political in the United States.

Friggin' modern Dr. Freud, this jackass.

[QUOTE=geel9;53119180]This conversation is all about other people in the exact same way though. If you want to call someone a shitty person you can't be all "whoah hey now that's not fair" when someone brings up shit from [i]your[/i] past to show your biases.[/QUOTE] Bring on other arguments then it shouldn't be hard. Gonna go to sleep now though. I'll be back later.

[QUOTE=01271;53119050]No, this is what you dig up in seconds because it's recent. I mean if people still want it, I made long-ass posts about it. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1577322&p=52647070#post52647070[/url] This is the take I did on it. It's somewhat long and nobody answered to it. It's also not portable (cloudflare hates it) so I'm not going to quote it. 2 tweets broke on it but w/e. I said that he was a climate change denier in that post and didn't go anywhere with it so I'll add on to that post here: The climate change bit is an example of him jumping back and forth on science when convenient. As soon as science is going the wrong way it's not relevant. It's especially not relevant when he talks about transgenderism. [url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1585937&p=52932449#post52932449[/url] He just lies about things, he lies a lot. It's annoying because it's harmful and makes us all stupider. Here's him lying and saying that trans kids get surgery at 3-4. [url]https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/02/06/Fox---Friends-guest-pushes-myth-that-3-and-4-year-old-trans-kids-are-making-surgical-and-b/219282[/url] This stuff happens all the time. He lies all the time and he's wrong all the time. It's not special. It's not an outlier, you could read my other posts about it. He doesn't fight for free speech he's a right wing evangelical sjw. He's not your dad.[/QUOTE] You're right, he's not my dad, but I agree with him on many things, and do not believe he is the "right wing evangelical sjw." you make him out to be Since you have been kind enough to put in the effort of criticism, I shall, in my part, attempt to address your points to the best of my ability and knowledge. At this point, before writing the response, I will say that I have not skimmed it, and as such I will respond exactly with my reaction, and that may even include concession on some of your points. We shall see. Let us start off with your linked megapost. I won't quote the whole thing, as you claim that it breaks, but I will restate your points, or quote them specifically, as I address them. The first point of criticism you offered was on his reaction to the Canadian "Islamophobia Bill". You present the bill as "a wish by Iqra Khalid to have the prime minister say "Islamophobia and racism is bad and we don't want more hate in the country" and then for the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to make a study on how to reduce racism and religious discrimination." His response, was admittedly blunt and indirect. On first viewing it is easy to see why it would appear to be a over-simplification, or some sort of false-equivalence, but I shall argue that it is not. Your points are nine-fold. You say that; 1) He is conflating limits on religious sacrilege found in Islamic theocracies with those to be proposed by the bill. 2) He thinks 'shitting on islam' will become illegal. 3) He thinks that he will be censored. 4) He is crossing the line in picking out Iqra Khalid as a supporter of this bill, and that he insinuates that Iqra is an extremist. 5) He is implying that violence against perceived islamophobia is a worry of his. 6) He is missing the point by repeatedly asking "Is this a picture of Mohammad?" 7) He is contradicting his own philosophical position by not 'escaping the embrace of the corpses of the past' when it comes to christianity. 8) He is oversimplifying things by casting things as black and white - westerner or terrorist. 9) He is forcing Iqra Khalid into the aforementioned false dichotomy. I shall now address these points one by one, and I hope that I have captured their content to your satisfaction. However, before I do so, it seems that many of the points pertinent to this specific video can be replied to by stating what, in my opinion, was Peterson's actual message in the video - his point. His point in that video seems to be, primarily, that the word Islamophobia is, by itself, vaguely defined, and as such can potentially conceal a lot of different implicit ideological content. Since Islamophobia has this status of unclear delimitation, and has not been officially defined as to exactly what actions and words would constitute such islamophobia, then his point in the video is to show that exactly the sort of edgy atheistic slurs that get hurled at Christian and Jewish sacredly held beliefs are seemingly unclearly legislated when it comes to Islam. This seems to be due to Islam having a specific word - Islamophobia. It is my belief that if this issue were addressed, and the explicitly brutal irreverance that has been shown to both Judaism and Christianity is allowed be shown to Islam, then Peterson would allow the bill. He likes being very specific with his language and as such, when it comes to legal matters, it seems that he takes issue with the law being so vague as to potentially make unclear the limits of criticism when it comes to Islam. The video in a nutshell is "Islamophobia is poorly defined - send the bill back to the drawing board." With that preamble out of the way, let me address your points more specifically. 1) As mentioned above, Peterson does not seem to be conflating so much as raising the issue of Islamophobia's vague definition. It is not clear whether those limits would be closer to one end of the spectrum, or the other. Certainly, the word Islamophobia seems to imply something over and above being a dick to religious people in general. It might appear to someone who is diligent about definition that this raises the question of "what's so special about Islam?" 2) This also ties in. Yes, he is worried about the degree to which 'shitting on Islam' might be considered Islamophobia as opposed to general religious criticism. He is worried about this because the terms are left unclearly defined. 3) See above. 4) I think here is a good place to bring up how much I hate when he makes videos in this artistic, almost trolly format. They're rare, but when they happen, confusion like this is the result. He is a combative person and, given that Iqra is the person popularly associated with support for the bill, he is questioning whether the implications of the world "Islamophobia" have been spelled out, and is doing so by being provocative - by warning that this normalization of censorship is what in part contributed to the Hebdo shootings. I don't think he actually wants to say of Iqra that such a thing is wanted, but rather that Iqra ought to be careful to clearly explain why this bill is different. I will say now again that I hate this format of his videos and he is pretty terrible at being 'artsy' sometimes. 5) This kind of ties into 4. Since the definition of acceptable 'shitting on Islam' vs 'Islamophobia' is undefined, and such a bill would make Islamophobia a legally sanctioned thing, then he is worried that at some point someone would mistake 'shitting on Islam' for 'Islamophobia' and feel the moral superiority that one feels when they punch a nazi - a criminal. 6) Coming back on the shitty artsy point, this video is clearly making a point about the acceptable things to say. When he clearly implies that he wants to say "This is a picture of Mohammad" or "Mohammad was a ____", but stops, and then later fully says the sentence "Is this a picture of Mohammad?", he is giving away his legalistic tendency, which is what I've been arguing about him. He is looking at this through a highly legalistic lens and there is a logical difference between the statement "This is a picture of Mohammad" and the question. The question would still technically be allowed under Sharia, and he is playing with this highly restricted form of speech in the video in order to draw out that point. 7) Oh boy. So, for this one, you kinda need to put yourself in his philosophical mindset. He views the past as a dead blind thing that got us here thus far, but that we must go in and revitalize it in order to make it continue to work for us in the future. He identifies as christian, but his morals are anything but exclusively that. He seems to be making a chimera of a morality out of various mythologies which he has studied and critically thought about and transformed via his own views. This is what he means by going into the past and revitalizing it, and not being stuck by the embraces of the corpses of the past. 8)So, for this one I don't agree that he presented a dichotomy, but rather, seemingly, a 'trichotomy', and a tiered one at that, not a binary one. It's not much better, but there it is. He asks whether Iqra stands with either; a)Muslims of the World b)Muslims of the West c)Muslims of Canada and in that statement he is basically asking whether this bill is inspired with the values of Islam, of Western Islam, or of Canadian-Western Islam. You see here that it is NOT the black-white east-west dichotomy you accused him of presenting, but rather the trichotomy of increasingly specific value groups. It seems to me that Jordan wishes for it to be specifically inspired by western canadian values rather than muslim values in the world. This again comes back to the vague definition of the word Islamophobia which is the entire point of contention in his video, as I've said. 9) See above. Phew, that was a ride. Let's see, there is a little bit more here about this video that you said. [quote]He's basically just spewed a ton of fear, dogwhistling about free speech, mischaracterization of Iqra Khalid, mischaracterization of m103, loads of fallacies in the video. This video was my introduction to Jordan Peterson so I count myself lucky to immediately having been put in front of his crazy side and grateful to my SO for choosing it. That's how I know it's not unfair to represent him with this video, because his own fan would choose it as a point to convince me with.[/quote] Well, to this I will point again to my assertion that this format of video is rare for him when generally they take the form of extremely specifically articulated definitions and lines of reasoning. The video was meant to make an artsy point about free speech and legalism in the face of vague definitions. It was not a good first video for you, not because it was wrong, but because it wasn't presented in the format which he excels in. I still have a LOT of your post to go through, but I figure I'll post this section now as a teaser for the rest. I've got classes tommorow, so I might take a day or so posting it at most. I can also keep chopping it up as I write it, if you prefer. Also, here is the video for those of you who haven't seen it; [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=292&v=1VwpwP_fIqY[/media]

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;53119178]I'm not sure what this does to further conversation or address the points brought up other than to be a bit dickish about a personal situation.[/QUOTE] I studied psychology, and it annoys me when people try to discredit completely valid psychological approaches (and a lot of people on here do that). Recent example: [t]https://i.imgur.com/6Az88aE.png[/t] [t]https://i.imgur.com/jmhPtYq.png[/t] The point of me bringing it up was to show that he doesn't really understand what he's talking about in regard to psychology despite the fact that he posts in every thread about Peterson attempting to discredit his psychological methods, referring to them as 'harmful', and using his boyfriend's poor decision to try to prove this point. Despite the fact, the responsibility for that decision rested entirely on his boyfriend, and not Peterson (who it's more convenient to blame). I wasn't trying to be dickish, if you read my response to the post that I linked, I suggested that he try and get his boyfriend back into therapy. I only want what's best for people. And for the record, I disagree with a lot of Peterson's political views, but those views don't happen to magically invalidate his psychological methods.

[QUOTE=Wafflemonstr;53118826]"Intellectual"[/QUOTE] Where's your PhD then?

[QUOTE=SpartanXC9;53119253]Where's youre PhD then?[/QUOTE] In the arm of his chair.

He's just another Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle who has managed to amass a cult like following who conveniently give him money. The reason he is famous is because of being a YouTube star not because he is a professor or well regarded in his field. His love of Jungian archetypes is just one of the things he uses to mask the fact he's mostly just a concern trolling moron who likes the confirmation bias and attention that comes with his popularity.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;53119285]He's just another Deepak Chopra or Eckhart Tolle who has managed to amass a cult like following who conveniently give him money. The reason he is famous is because of being a YouTube star not because he is a professor or well regarded in his field. His love of Jungian archetypes is just one of the things he uses to mask the fact he's mostly just a concern trolling moron who likes the confirmation bias and attention that comes with his popularity.[/QUOTE] I see a lot of jargon but no substance

I'm really conflicted with Jordan Peterson. I definitely think he's intelligent, and his self-help/self-authoring advice is genuinely great advice. Definitely has helped me in many aspects of my life (especially his talks about creative minds). I find his analysis of myths, biblical stories, and modern media awesome. But his hardcore anti-sjw/marxist/blah blah blah can get really tiring. I think has good critiques in some regards but often doesn't seem to reflect on his own idealogically driven beliefs. Still seems like a chill dude who I'd be down to have a coffee with.

[QUOTE=Cyanlime;53118792] (Also, do watch the video in the OP, particularly 5:45 to 7:30 if you're short on time. Very elucidating in terms of the weird pseudo-scientific brand of sexism he pushes.)[/QUOTE] I going to play devils advocate here and say that what he is saying is accurate and true. So what is the argument against what he is saying?

'are women who wear makeup in the workplace and complain about sexual harassment being hypocritical' 'yes' because he woke up well shaven, with product in his hair wearing a suit didn't he. fucking dork. [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] half the people in this thread desperate to jump to the defence of Peterson are the same people who go quiet in every single other Peterson thread when he gets completely outed. Maybe it's time to sit down. For anyone else, he's a climate change skeptic, [URL]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/485805993968676864[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/224103250440359937[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/920414051099742208[/URL] outs students who he disagrees with to be dogpiled, [IMG]https://i.imgur.com/myvdcMw.png[/IMG] finds it regrettable that he can't beat up 'crazy women', [quote]If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women[/quote] [URL="https://phys.org/news/2018-01-psychologist-jordan-peterson-lobsters-human.html"]uses complete hogwash pseudoscience to justify sexism[/URL] thinks [I]jungian archetypes [/I] are a universal axiom, and is not qualified nor [URL="https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/"]understands[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53070520&highlight=#post53070520"]the[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53074349&highlight=#post53074349"]philosophical[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53074431&highlight=#post53074431"]basis[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53078905&viewfull=1#post53078905"]for[/URL] [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1591356&p=53080523&viewfull=1#post53080523"]his[/URL] [URL="https://medium.com/@aaronhuertas/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political-arguments-312153eac99a"]bullshit[/URL]

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53119446]Uh huh, would you help me? I'm looking at this quote you carefully provided and I'm not seeing regret? How do you feel comfy with yourself twisting other people's statements like that?[/QUOTE] I think it's quite clear what regrettable meant in that context, but out of everything I said thanks for nitpicking semantics to make me out as the monster I am. How [I]do[/I] I live with myself? Sometimes I wonder dude. You can find the full quote somewhere around 35min in this video [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-hIVnmUdXM[/url] And then we can decide whether Peterson must be taken at face value or whether some extrapolation is allowed. It seems we need to conveniently switch between the two whenever he says some dumb bullshit.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;53119365] [URL]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/485805993968676864[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/224103250440359937[/URL] [URL]https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/920414051099742208[/URL] [/QUOTE] that first tweet, jesus christ sourcing the daily mail, a very frequently climate change denying paper fucking stupid

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53119512]I only picked it because I watched that interview and I know the context. It's not semantics, you're putting quantitative statement in his mouth and it's disgusting. He did not say it was regrettable, he was stating a problem. How we only work together for minuscule 60 or so years and how men are more inclined to go physical if civil discussion is fruitless and they [B]can't[/B] do it with women. Some women take advantage of that. And that's not good. That's it. That's what he stated. He says all the time that [B]he doesn't know what to do about it[/B]. Not that he wishes we could punch annoying women. And I don't even think it's that big of a deal. In the old times beating the crap out of kids for misbehaving was seeing as more or less normal, but our standards has risen since then and even if it happens today it's seen as reprehensible. And just as some shitty kids will be shitty, some shitty women gonna be shitty no matter what, threat of physical violence included. But I hate quotes meaning being twisted.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure you know what I mean by regrettable. [quote]How we only work together for minuscule 60 or so years[/quote] What does this have to do with anything? The males in my office don't start swinging for each other after sour disagreement. [quote]men are more inclined to go physical if civil discussion is fruitless and they [B]can't[/B] do it with women. Some women take advantage of that. And that's not good.[/quote] If the threat of physical violence was a requirement for fruitful discussion with well defined boundaries then jails and the like would surely be intellectual paradise. It's just dumb bullshit. The interpretation doesn't matter, because any way it's put is still dumb bullshit.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53119512]I only picked it because I watched that interview and I know the context. It's not semantics, you're putting quantitative statement in his mouth and it's disgusting. He did not say it was regrettable, he was stating a problem. How we only work together for minuscule 60 or so years and how men are more inclined to go physical if civil discussion is fruitless and they [B]can't[/B] do it with women. Some women take advantage of that. And that's not good. That's it. That's what he stated. He says all the time that [B]he doesn't know what to do about it[/B]. Not that he wishes we could punch annoying women. And I don't even think it's that big of a deal. In the old times beating the crap out of kids for misbehaving was seeing as more or less normal, but our standards has risen since then and even if it happens today it's seen as reprehensible. And just as some shitty kids will be shitty, some shitty women gonna be shitty no matter what, threat of physical violence included. But I hate quotes meaning being twisted.[/QUOTE] What is 'taking advantage of not being beat up into submission during an argument' even supposed to mean? How can you 'take advantage' of being treated like a normal human being? 'Taking advantage' implies abusing your position.

[QUOTE=Mech Bgum;53119446]Uh huh, would you help me? I'm looking at this quote you carefully provided and I'm not seeing regret? How do you feel comfy with yourself twisting other people's statements like that?[/QUOTE] It sounds like he's being intentionally vague, I don't think that's a quote that can be taken out of context either, that ones pretty clear, if its true. it sounds like careful wording that gives you enough room to not [U]technically[/U] say something.

[QUOTE=Fayez;53119020]I'm not surprised he decided to put him on their show to be honest. This is the same guy [B]who spouted Nazi propaganda verbatim regarding the Dresden bombings.[/B] I don't think he really cares about what he/people say on his podcast because of that sweet sweet Patreon money.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Darth Ninja;53119136]We studied Slaughterhouse-Five in university so I can provide some context to this. [B]The misinformation is from the book itself, the main character (Billy Pilgrim) reads The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving, a now-discredited historian who conflated the figures to make the death toll higher than that of Hiroshima.[/B][/QUOTE] So let me get this right, someone reads something from a 1969 science-fiction novel that uses historical information incorrectly and they're spouting Nazi propaganda? Like, I'm failing to see how you connected this together other than to be purposefully disingenuous? And they don't even have a patreon?

Peterson is a talented psychologist. [I]That's all he ever will be.[/I] The lack of research he does in other fields, thinking that his genius transfer over is dangerous [B]at best.[/B]

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq7W9frEPLg[/media] jordan peterson is a hack

Just to hop on the Jordan Peterson says stupid shit train, he also believes that [URL="https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465"]feminists avoid talking about religion because they secretly want to be dominated[/URL] by men. This guy has takes so cold that they belong in the arctic, he's an idiot.

[QUOTE=Streecer;53120115]Just to hop on the Jordan Peterson says stupid shit train, he also believes that [URL="https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/913533213301182465"]feminists avoid talking about religion because they secretly want to be dominated[/URL] by men. This guy has takes so cold that they belong in the arctic, he's an idiot.[/QUOTE] Genuine question The tennants of islam hold onto beliefs that subjugate women, this is a fundamental component of the religion, and it isn't "Islmaphobic" of me to talk about the actual scripture of the dogma. His take on it may be stupid but it's a genuine question that isn't being answered. I don't think his answer is correct, but why is there a protection of islam and their culture over others in the modern western world? Even criticizing the religion can land someone in the hot water of "islamaphobia" by just expressing dissent against a pretty bad religion.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53120123]Genuine question The tennants of islam hold onto beliefs that subjugate women, this is a fundamental component of the religion, and it isn't "Islmaphobic" of me to talk about the actual scripture of the dogma. His take on it may be stupid but it's a genuine question that isn't being answered. I don't think his answer is correct, but why is there a protection of islam and their culture over others in the modern western world? Even criticizing the religion can land someone in the hot water of "islamaphobia" by just expressing dissent against a pretty bad religion.[/QUOTE] Christian Dogma also has those tenants. In most of the Bible, women are treated equally as cattle for Christ's sake. Of the same coin, while we were having a women's rights movement in the west, the Middle East was having one as well. Do you earnestly want to know what happened? A bunch of far right assholes started saying women have too much and got so mad they started killing people and taking over governments, and the United States helped stoke those fires. Hmm, lets see what's happening in the west. Oh, I see a bunch of [I]far right assholes who would love to kill people and take power.[/I] [editline]9th February 2018[/editline] Drop the religious arguments, they're circular logic at its finest with both sides arguing the same shit different day crap. They bring nothing to the table and woefully mischaracterize large populations with broad strokes stereotypes. You only come out sounding ignorant at the end of it.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53120129]Christian Dogma also has those tenants. In most of the Bible, women are treated equally as cattle for Christ's sake.[/QUOTE] I am a anti-theist in all honesty, who bites my tongue 99% of the time because I don't want to be a dick. Christianity is a highly problematic religion with tons of stupid belief stuctures inside of it. However, it's not a fundamentally dogmatic religion in it's application currently. Call me ignorant, call me stupid, but you're fucking wrong on this. While the bible would argue that, and I would agree that is the fundamentalist interpretation of the bible, it is not the one we see actively used in the day to day lives of christians by and large. This is not quite the same of Islam. [QUOTE] Of the same coin, while we were having a women's rights movement in the west, the Middle East was having one as well. Do you earnestly want to know what happened? A bunch of far right assholes started saying women have too much and got so mad they started killing people and taking over governments, and the United States helped stoke those fires.[/QUOTE] Actually I probably know more about the history of Iran in the 1950's and early 60's than you do so your condescending tone and mindset here is nothing but you being a condescending because you feel like being condescending. It conveys nothing but your "superiority". Lets not go down that route, eh? I do "Earnestly" and honeslty know what happened. American and british intervention in the middle east which created the company "BP" and smashed the progressive rise of the muslim world. But no, call me ignorant guy! [QUOTE] Hmm, lets see what's happening in the west. Oh, I see a bunch of [I]far right assholes who would love to kill people and take power.[/I][/QUOTE] What are you alluding to specifically here? [QUOTE]Drop the religious arguments, they're circular logic at its finest with both sides arguing the same shit different day crap. They bring nothing to the table and woefully mischaracterize large populations with broad strokes stereotypes.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to have any problem with "broad stroke stereotypes" in other contexts so, why? [QUOTE]You only come out sounding ignorant at the end of it.[/QUOTE] I'll be honest, your tone has made me give absolutely 0 fucks as to what you think of me, or anyone in terms of "Ignorance".