Radical Islamists attack Radiohead event in Istanbul - General

My analogy works in that there is a recognizable amount of good and bad people in both the communities of minorities and in Islam, and using the bad people of both to represent the entirety of those groups would be ridiculous. The only difference is that Muslims can choose whether or not they can be Muslim, but it's inconsequential to my point that they shouldn't be represented by the worst of their group, and that when you do that you're trivializing a shit ton of innocent people. Feminism is another great example if you want to talk about ideologies. Feminism is being falsely represented by crazies, and people are choosing to accept those people as the prime representatives of that group. Never mind the fact that feminism spans across different fields, different countries, and different approaches - it's now trivialized by the noisy few. And this is true of the Republican party as well, and pretty much any modern activist group. Ask a bunch of Animal Rights activists if they like that PETA is the forefront of their campaign and measure how many people approve of them. And that's what's happening with Islam but on a greater scale and with dire results. There's the other side to Islam that is being overshadowed because we ignore them. We [I]have[/I] to separate the good guys from the bad guys.

If you wanna talk issues, people are trying to tell you that [quote]How about blatant discrimination of women and homosexuals to a point where gay sex is illegal to start with? What about sharia law? [/quote] is a problem of development, not of religion. You've got Buddhist monks slaughtering Muslims in Myanmar and even Buddhists torturing people in Sri Lanka, Christians hanging homosexuals in Ruanda and I am sure uppon asking any of these assholes they will all find some part of their holy scriptures that "justifies" their doings. By saying that the issues we see in the Middle East are an attribute of the religion, you are clouding the view on what REALLY causes these cases of extremism: politics and struggle for power.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50557536]If you wanna talk issues, people are trying to tell you that is a problem of development, not of religion. You've got Buddhist monks slaughtering Muslims in Myanmar and even Buddhists torturing people in Sri Lanka, Christians hanging homosexuals in Ruanda and I am sure uppon asking any of these assholes they will all find some part of their holy scriptures that "justifies" their doings. By saying that the issues we see in the Middle East are an attribute of the religion, you are clouding the view on what REALLY causes these cases of extremism: politics and struggle for power.[/QUOTE] And this gets into the really good stuff that I love to talk about and criticize. When religion becomes used as a tool for power, I'm very eager to start calling bullshit. I'm not against religious criticism, I'm just against reckless criticism and bigotry, and there's a very fine line between the two that you can't fuck up. Like I said - I don't think you're a bigot, but I think you're being reckless and ignorant of the power of the words you are saying, and unfairly suggesting that everyone around you should just assume you have the best intentions.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50557494]I don't know man you came up with the whole regressive mind reading thing instead of discussing issues and now are saying that I "seemingly" prefer arguing semantics and you post stuff like Your whole tone is pretty ... snide so I don't really feel like talking to you anymore tbh I mean what do you expect from shitposting like That people concentrate on issues instead of the way you post?[/QUOTE] Just take a step back and calm down seriously. You tried to tell me what I think while ignoring what I actually posted. And I was hostile about it. You've made 3 stawmen in one post and not actually addressed one thing I actually said, and I was hostile about it. Some guy tried to make a terrible hyperbole out of strawman he made from my analogy and I was hostile about it. Someone said they wanted to make a long argument but I'm too stupid or not worthy and I was really hostile about it. Notice the pattern here? Unless someone is trying to twist my words or do other disingenuous tricks I'm not hostile at all. Now you've made a few posts since our last argument without addressing it while discussing non-existence of race instead, is my assumption you want abandon the other argument really unsubstantiated? Do you really not see how hypocritical you are? You are calling me on not focusing on discussing the issues while making strawmen, telling me what I think and abandoning arguments to talk about the non-existence of race (that someone else brought up). And what am I even supposed to concentrate on in response to someone saying "I wanted to make an argument but you are too stupid to understand so I won't"? And how is that not shitposting what they did? [editline]21st June 2016[/editline] Seriously this is baffling to me. Say we are having an argument and I twist your words every single time. You get upset and call me out. And then I go "You seem really hostile. You seem to be focusing on calling out my strawmen instead of focusing on the issues. I don't want to talk to you anymore". Do you really not see how hypocritical that is?

ayyy people are arguing with each other lmao [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Glitchman;50555848]So can these people file assault charges, or would that not even go through in that situation? Someone came in like that and slap me around over some religious belief and I'd either sue or leave that place and never come back. By his logic, more than 2/3 of the Islam faith believes in punishing people for being gay and are against women's rights. Only the Moderns would be progressive in a sense. As being deeply rooted in Christianity not only Catholics in the Boston area but Baptists in the deep south - this couldn't be more wrong. The chief virtue of Christians is in forgiveness of sinners and a "blind eye attitude". How often compared to traditional or fundamentalist Islam do you see gays LEGALLY assaulted, murdered, or driven from their homes. I understand there is a history of violence towards homosexuals and women in our very own modern day society; but even then we have laws to protect all citizen's rights. A lot of traditional/fundamental follows of Islam want Sharia law which would make these violent acts ENCOURAGED. Let's also not forget the millions of Christians killed and driven out of the middle east. Frankly I'm getting a bit exahusted of you're pseudo-intellectual posts in all of these threads, slightly favoring a regressive world view which is ignoring violence towards minorities and women in our modern society. And I can say this confidently knowing I am not prone to cultural bias or Islamophobia, and although my post could seem that way I am just trying to state the many issues that arise from the clash of Islam with Christianity or Atheist/agnostic western cultures. You didn't even talk about the video you just went straight to trying to educate people in some weird roundabout way.[/QUOTE] What's a chief virtue of Islam? Do you know any? At all? The third pillar of Islam is [I]charity[/I], a god-given compulsion to give your own hard-earned money to the poor and downtrodden - but nah, of course Christianity is somehow more virtuous because... you grew up with it? I'm not comparing the two - they both have their positives and negatives. I am not promoting a "pseudo-intellectual regressive world view." I'm an atheist who would much rather have a world without religion - you're just too dense to understand that there's a difference between explaining some of the differences of a religion and [i]believing[/i] in those explanations. I don't believe a single thing in the Koran or the Bible or anything - I just strongly believe that people have a guaranteed human right to practice the religion they please, and I find bigotry against those religions and unfair judgments of religious values as frustrating as I would find someone arguing that certain races deserve worse or that due process is unnecessary. It offends my conscience. I didn't talk about the video because I was responding to the discussion. All that said - [i]this video has nothing to do with Christianity[/i]. It is two groups that have ideological differences, with the far-right assaulting the more liberal one. It is entirely within Islam, which is why I brought those three (simplified) distinctions up in the first place. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50555764]Are those the correct terms? I had the impression that those who you called traditionalists are the fundamentalists and the ones you called fundamentalists are the extremists/terrorists. Genuine question. I always thought fundamentalists are intolerant and conservative but don't kill infidels/gays/whatever.[/QUOTE] No, they're not accurate at all - they're way oversimplified. There are dozens of modernist/liberal movements within Islam, of various scale and effectiveness. There are multiple traditions that conflict with each other. There are different fundamentalist groups that battle with each other. It's a huge oversimplification, but it helps people distinguish between "conservative/traditional" and "extremist/radical." There's an enormous difference. But look at the list of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism#Islamic_fundamentalist_groups"]Islamic fundamentalist groups[/URL] - Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban, various Mujahideens, etc. They are largely terror groups and murderers. Fundamentalists in Islam are effectively synonymous with extremists/radicals/terrorists. Conservatives and traditionalists are different - because Islam has traditionally not been interpreted in a fundamentalist way until fairly recently.

its like saying that WBC's activities are duplicated by all christians.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50557609]Just take a step back and calm down seriously. You tried to tell me what I think while ignoring what I actually posted. And I was hostile about it. You've made 3 stawmen in one post and not actually addressed one thing I actually said, and I was hostile about it. Some guy tried to make a terrible hyperbole out of strawman he made from my analogy and I was hostile about it. Someone said they wanted to make a long argument but I'm too stupid or not worthy and I was really hostile about it. Notice the pattern here? Unless someone is trying to twist my words or do other disingenuous tricks I'm not hostile at all. Now you've made a few posts since our last argument without addressing it while discussing non-existence of race instead, is my assumption you want abandon the other argument really unsubstantiated? Do you really not see how hypocritical you are? You are calling me on not focusing on discussing the issues while making strawmen, telling me what I think and abandoning arguments to talk about the non-existence of race (that someone else brought up). And what am I even supposed to concentrate on in response to someone saying "I wanted to make an argument but you are too stupid to understand so I won't"? And how is that not shitposting what they did? [editline]21st June 2016[/editline] Seriously this is baffling to me. Say we are having an argument and I twist your words every single time. You get upset and call me out. And then I go "You seem really hostile. You seem to be focusing on calling out my strawmen instead of focusing on the issues. I don't want to talk to you anymore". Do you really not see how hypocritical that is?[/QUOTE] How do I have 3 strawmen in my post am I not allowed to tell you that your snide tone doesn't really do you any good and is not what a civil discussion should include? You make weird provocative shitpost phrases and when I call you out on them you tell me to "calm down" ?? I'm not seeing the strawman here. I am not using criticism of your provocative and unfriendly tone to somehow win the argument. We can discuss issues, but not as long as you react all butthurt when someone tells you that [quote]Your Grace can you indulge your humble servant and explain to a mere maggot how's that different?[/quote] is shitposting and your "defense" is to tell people to concentrate on the issues.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50560254]How do I have 3 strawmen in my post am I not allowed to tell you that your snide tone doesn't really do you any good and is not what a civil discussion should include? You make weird provocative shitpost phrases and when I call you out on them you tell me to "calm down" ?? I'm not seeing the strawman here. I am not using criticism of your provocative and unfriendly tone to somehow win the argument. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Silly Sil;50556499]First of all: You just tried to refute that I am actually saying "all muslims" with a quote of me where I make it clear I don't believe they are all the same. Where I make it clear not all of them are strictly following islam. Second: I have never used the word dangerous in this thread. Third: I have never used the term "not real muslim/muslims". Again what the fuck are you talking about? I have never said Islam has a monopoly on being backwards or intolerant. You have not addressed accurately any of the points I am making. All you're doing is trying to put words in my mouth. Why don't you try responding to what I'm actually saying? Otherwise what is even the point in replying?[/QUOTE] These are the stawmen I was talking about. That was before. I'm not saying you are making stawmen now. I was describing what happened and why I was "snide". You guys stop putting words in my mouth I'll stop being snide. Deal? Seriously read that post again. You missed the point because you thought I was talking about what you're doing now, I guess? [QUOTE=Killuah;50560254]We can discuss issues, but not as long as you react all butthurt when someone tells you that is shitposting and your "defense" is to tell people to concentrate on the issues.[/QUOTE] The "your grace" thing was making fun of the guy who came here and basically said "I wanted to make an argument but you are too stupid to understand so I won't". I'm not butthurt about you calling it shitposting. Because it was shitposting in response to someone else's shitposting.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50557301]It means that Race does not exist by biologic scientific consensus[/QUOTE] That's actually not true, there are many real biologists that subscribe to the idea of races but they face harrasment if they talk about it so they shut up for the most part. Hitlers idea of race is obviously wrong though. The problem is that there is several different definitions of what race actually means. If you subscribe to the definition of race being a group of animals with regularly occuring phenotypes that make them different from other groups of the same specie, then there is definitely human races although we are mostly mixed nowadays. There is only one specie however, homo sapiens. Sometimes people confuse specie and race. However, it doesn't really matter if you subscribe to the idea or not as long as we agree on that there isn't much to gain from taxionomically dividing people and that we shouldn't treat anyone differently.

Obviously talking about race within humans, not taxonomic classifications "Race (human categorization), a social construct used to classify human beings by phenotype, ancestry, or ethnicity"

[QUOTE=Killuah;50561565]Obviously talking about race within humans, not taxonomic classifications "Race (human categorization), a social construct used to classify human beings by phenotype, ancestry, or ethnicity"[/QUOTE] How is this relevant to anything? Waterboi was making an analogy using race - the social construct, ethnicity.

[QUOTE=Killuah;50561565]Obviously talking about race within humans, not taxonomic classifications "Race (human categorization), a social construct used to classify human beings by phenotype, ancestry, or ethnicity"[/QUOTE] They are the same. Race, no matter if you are talking about animals or people, is a social construct. We are animals that can be taxonomically classified just like any other specie but we rarely use it because it's not necessary. In some cases we do though, like in forensic medicine we can find clues that a person was of a certain race by looking at the mandible (jawbone) for example. We also know that some diseases affect people of different races (or whatever you want to call it) more or less than people of other races like sicle cell anemia etc. and it's not only because of socioeconomic differences. We are different and whether you want to call it race or something else should be irrelevant but it isn't to most people because Hitler. The point is, if you want to say that a black guy is of another race than a white guy you are not incorrect because they aren't different, but because scientists can't agree on what a race is. So it's actually correct to say someone is of african race (negroid) as long as you have the right definition of what a race is.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;50566282]They are the same. Race, no matter if you are talking about animals or people, is a social construct. We are animals that can be taxonomically classified just like any other specie but we rarely use it because it's not necessary. In some cases we do though, like in forensic medicine we can find clues that a person was of a certain race by looking at the mandible (jawbone) for example. We also know that some diseases affect people of different races (or whatever you want to call it) more or less than people of other races like sicle cell anemia etc. and it's not only because of socioeconomic differences. We are different and whether you want to call it race or something else should be irrelevant but it isn't to most people because Hitler. The point is, if you want to say that a black guy is of another race than a white guy you are not incorrect because they aren't different, but because scientists can't agree on what a race is. So it's actually correct to say someone is of african race (negroid) as long as you have the right definition of what a race is.[/QUOTE] What you're saying is all fine and true except the scientific term "race" doesn't apply to humans anymore. With globalization humans have been interbreeding so much that there aren't really any actual human races anymore. What we call "race" in every day's language and what scientific "race" is are different things. Kinda like "theory". The genetic differences you are talking about exist of course, but that's not enough to apply the scientific term "race". And it's all really off topic.

Quite sad to see people think of Istanbul as a dangerous place. It's really not, but it is quite true that Turkey is divided. I am not really religious and so is my family. Most of the population in Istanbul thinks this way also, but we do get a lot of people who come from the east side of Turkey to come and work in Istanbul since it's a big city then shit like this happens.

[QUOTE=loopoo;50554561]That's what pisses me off about religion: a book that is supposedly written by an omniscient, omnipotent being can be misinterpreted by millions of people. Surely if it were a case of it being written by such a powerful being, there would be zero margin of error in interpreting the book, no?[/QUOTE] This is a false assumption. I am not sure if you seen game of thrones yet. If yes, have you seen the episode where Stannis cursed three people with blood leeches? Then all the targets died under which seemed to be by coincidence? Was the spell that did it or just shit luck? There was a story about three Rabbis who prayed to God. One quit and became an atheist, another became a heretic (by becoming convinced there were two Gods) and one claimed to see God but went stark bat shit crazy. They all had the same exact vision, but they interpreted all differently. In the bible, there was a story of one of the prophets who met God in a dream. Was it a dream or did he actually talk to God in his sleep? Whenever someone deals with some thing spiritual (religion or other wise), they are dealing with something very chaotic, paradoxical, multi faceted, murky and undefinable in its nature. The point is if Muhammad did talk to God during a vision or psychotic episode (or both and neither at same time) , it was prone to his interpretations then when he passed it on, it got changed by other people when they put their interpretations on it. Something that is inherently fuzzy to begin with is never going be perfect. Thus a wide margin of error.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;50566376]What you're saying is all fine and true except the scientific term "race" doesn't apply to humans anymore. With globalization humans have been interbreeding so much that there aren't really any actual human races anymore. What we call "race" in every day's language and what scientific "race" is are different things. Kinda like "theory". The genetic differences you are talking about exist of course, but that's not enough to apply the scientific term "race". And it's all really off topic.[/QUOTE] So casually using race = ethnicity? Then I understand what you mean. It's true that we are so mixed nowadays that there are almost no "pure" (sounds so wrong) human races but what I've been trying to explain is that the scientific term race does apply to humans depending on which scientific definition you use because there are several, not one. It's true that there is more genetic difference between individuals than there is between people of different scientific races but there are regularly occurring phenotypes like skincolor that can warrant scientific race. There are two main reasons most biologists say there aren't races among humans: 1. they are using a different scientific definition, 2. it doesn't matter and race have gotten a negative meaning since racial biology so they don't want to say there is. And I know it's beside the point but Killuah brought it up as some weird attempt at a straw man. [editline]23rd June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50570927]This is a false assumption. I am not sure if you seen game of thrones yet. If yes, have you seen the episode where Stannis cursed three people with blood leeches? Then all the targets died under which seemed to be by coincidence? Was the spell that did it or just shit luck? There was a story about three Rabbis who prayed to God. One quit and became an atheist, another became a heretic (by becoming convinced there were two Gods) and one claimed to see God but went stark bat shit crazy. They all had the same exact vision, but they interpreted all differently. In the bible, there was a story of one of the prophets who met God in a dream. Was it a dream or did he actually talk to God in his sleep? Whenever someone deals with some thing spiritual (religion or other wise), they are dealing with something very chaotic, paradoxical, multi faceted, murky and undefinable in its nature. The point is if Muhammad did talk to God during a vision or psychotic episode (or both and neither at same time) , it was prone to his interpretations then when he passed it on, it got changed by other people when they put their interpretations on it. Something that is inherently fuzzy to begin with is never going be perfect. Thus a wide margin of error.[/QUOTE] Yeah but if it was an omnipotent being that contacted muhammad he would have been able to make muhammad understand everything perfectly simply because he is omnipotent. This leaves us with three different scenarios: 1. God choose to make everyone interpret the religion differently. 2. God isn't omnipotent. 3. God either is or isn't omnipotent but he isn't omniscient so he didn't foresee it. [editline]23rd June 2016[/editline] Actually, there is a fourth one that I believe in, there is no God.

[QUOTE=Hanso;50554460]I really do try to understand these psychos, but I can't. I can only come to the conclusion that they are jealous other people are enjoying themselves while they torture themselves during Ramadan.[/QUOTE] The heaven/hell thing plays role there. They actually believe by doing "good" they'll get to live in the Heaven and they believe what they are doing is good.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;50573114] Yeah but if it was an omnipotent being that contacted muhammad he would have been able to make muhammad understand everything perfectly simply because he is omnipotent. This leaves us with three different scenarios: 1. God choose to make everyone interpret the religion differently. 2. God isn't omnipotent. 3. God either is or isn't omnipotent but he isn't omniscient so he didn't foresee it. [editline]23rd June 2016[/editline] Actually, there is a fourth one that I believe in, there is no God.[/QUOTE] The fifth possibility is you may be dealing with a being that does/does not/ maybe does / maybe not/ exists all at the same time. That can only work through dreams, imaginations and visions of people. Now let say a human gains communion with said being with purpose of channeling a holy book. Yeah there is going be a huge margin of error right there.

[QUOTE=Dayzofwinter;50573716]The fifth possibility is you may be dealing with a being that does/does not/ maybe does / maybe not/ exists all at the same time. That can only work through dreams, imaginations and visions of people. Now let say a human gains communion with said being with purpose of channeling a holy book. Yeah there is going be a huge margin of error right there.[/QUOTE] But if someone/something is omnipotent it can do whatever it wants. If it only can communicate through dreams it's not omnipotent.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;50575289]But if someone/something is omnipotent it can do whatever it wants. If it only can communicate through dreams it's not omnipotent.[/QUOTE] I make no claim it is omnipotent nor that is the focus of the conversation. The more important focus is why people keep screwing it up when it comes interpreting the will of a deity. My view is based on the more commonly known myths with the majors religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism) and how said myths often describe the methods used to contact the divine. In my view said methods produce results that are chaotic (as mentioned) elusive and prone to false positives. If said being would actuality exist, then I assume that what their nature is.