Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penguinofhonor]

I must say, it's sometimes very apparent that Europeans approach international issues with the goal of talking down to people rather than having a real discussion.

[scriver]

Stop being so Amerocentric.

Stop being so Amerocentric.

Mm, given the wide differences in racial and class issues between America and Europe, it's sometimes very apparent in conversations like this that Americans are approaching these issues with certain presumptions that just aren't applicable to our own societies. It can be quite irritating, I find, particularly in real life.

oh ok

since apparently I'm an American now, I'll just shut up and let you two, as proper Europeans, continue your discourse in this European thread

While I agree that calling Sergarr Amerocentric is pretty hilarious and not something I think he'd ever expected he'd be called on these forums, I must say that

"Socio-economic" and "religious" are practically the same thing in Protestant ideology. If you're financially successful, it means that the God favour you - including the case where you get rich by enslaving other people - or rather, "non-people" - as the ideologists of that age were big on claiming that black people and other natives were not actually humans, but rather human-shaped monkeys with no soul and etc. It's why the South of USA was simultaneously extremely religious and very big on usage of slaves one and a half century ago.

Is mostly a feature of American protestantism, and spread to Europe through returning migrants and 80's cultural influence. The European protestant churches tend do not agree with that kind of thinking.

Although I honestly don't think you can claim that colonialism was religious rather than socio-economic.

Religion was certainly part of how people justified it, though. Same kind of unreasoning that Islamists use today.

I must say, it's sometimes very apparent that Europeans approach international issues with the goal of talking down to people rather than having a real discussion.

You mean exactly like Americans do?

[penguinofhonor]

There was some subtlety to my post, but you missed it because your eurobrain will never really get our culture.

[nullBolt]

(Sergarr's Russian)

Doesn't mean he can't be Amerocentric.

And, to be honest, that makes it even worse that he's trying to compare two countries that he doesn't seem to know anything about.

I must say, it's sometimes very apparent that Europeans approach international issues with the goal of talking down to people rather than having a real discussion.

We've literally been having a real discussion for quite a few pages until someone came in and started saying that because the American Protestants were supposedly bad that it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert.

(And, to be honest, considering the atrocities Russia has done not only to nearby nations but its own people within the past 100 years, I don't think condemning political ideologies long since gone is a very logical idea.)

While I agree that calling Sergarr Amerocentric is pretty hilarious and not something I think he'd ever expected he'd be called on these forums, I must say that

"Socio-economic" and "religious" are practically the same thing in Protestant ideology. If you're financially successful, it means that the God favour you - including the case where you get rich by enslaving other people - or rather, "non-people" - as the ideologists of that age were big on claiming that black people and other natives were not actually humans, but rather human-shaped monkeys with no soul and etc. It's why the South of USA was simultaneously extremely religious and very big on usage of slaves one and a half century ago.

Is mostly a feature of American protestantism, and spread to Europe through returning migrants and 80's cultural influence. The European protestant churches tend do not agree with that kind of thinking.

Exactly what I was referring to. It was also a bit tongue in cheek at the same time, mind.

Although I honestly don't think you can claim that colonialism was religious rather than socio-economic.

Religion was certainly part of how people justified it, though. Same kind of unreasoning that Islamists use today.

Of course it was part of the justification, but that doesn't mean the religion itself had a negative ideology.

[Graknorke]

We've literally been having a real discussion for quite a few pages until someone came in and started saying that because the American Protestants were supposedly bad that it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert.

*or be an underclass that gets taxed more heavily and can't be in regular government

aka prepare yourself for cultural enrichment

[Sergarr]

(Sergarr's Russian)

Doesn't mean he can't be Amerocentric.

And, to be honest, that makes it even worse that he's trying to compare two countries that he doesn't seem to know anything about.

Which "two countries" am I comparing?

I must say, it's sometimes very apparent that Europeans approach international issues with the goal of talking down to people rather than having a real discussion.

We've literally been having a real discussion for quite a few pages until someone came in and started saying that because the American Protestants were supposedly bad that it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert.

what the shit

stop putting words into my mouth

look if you're bad at reading, I'll copy it again:

So because Christianity was a shit a millenia ago, that gives people the rights to be a shit now?

Do you understand what is wrong with that logic?

I did not say that. I've said that your question is utterly useless. It doesn't mean that I condone such behaviour - and the very fact that you did interpret it in such a way speaks volumes of your attitude towards honest discussion.

try finding out where do I speak in favour of Islam mass murder will ya

(And, to be honest, considering the atrocities Russia has done not only to nearby nations but its own people within the past 100 years, I don't think condemning political ideologies long since gone is a very logical idea.)

and again with failure to read

welp, time to quote myself again:

...but it was condemned by pretty much everyone, with sole exception of al-Nusra?

Also, almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies. Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy. Hell, even the traditionally portrayed as "peaceful" ideologies - like Buddhism - are not free of violence in the name of ideology. So that question is not "real", it's just stupid.

in case this is still too tl;dr for EURO STRONK, i'll simplify the task:

almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies.

see here's a thing, i've mentioned christianity simply because it was the first thing that came to my mind in relation to Islam

it doesn't mean that i'm letting other ideologies slide through

[nullBolt]

We've literally been having a real discussion for quite a few pages until someone came in and started saying that because the American Protestants were supposedly bad that it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert.

*or be an underclass that gets taxed more heavily and can't be in regular government

aka prepare yourself for cultural enrichment

You can only be in the underclass if you're a Christian. This is because the Qu'ran states that Christians should be left alone as they follow the same god as Muslims and that there are many paths to Allah.

If you're a Jew, "pagan" (i.e. anything other than Jew, Christian or Muslim), former Muslim or an atheist, you will be killed. There's a long list of other stuff that put you on the kill list, but honestly I'd be here all day. Get some idea off this guy.

<snip>

Let me just quote you for a second:

Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy.

Here you are making a direct comparison, stating that modern Islam (which has caused the genocide of at least a few hundred thousand in the past few years, at least judging by the rapidly falling Kurdish and Yazidi populations) is not as bad as something that happened centuries ago. Nevermind the essential enslaving of women in most of the Middle-East or anything, just the Kurdish genocides.

Just have a think about that for a second, please.

If that's not suggesting that what is currently going on is not a problem, I don't really understand what is.

[Sergarr]

<snip>

Let me just quote you for a second:

Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy.

Here you are making a direct comparison, stating that modern Islam (which has caused the genocide of at least a few hundred thousand in the past few years, at least judging by the rapidly falling Kurdish and Yazidi populations) is not as bad as something that happened centuries ago. Nevermind the essential enslaving of women in most of the Middle-East or anything, just the Kurdish genocides.

Just have a think about that for a second, please.

If that's not suggesting that what is currently going on is not a problem, I don't really understand what is.

"I don't really understand" it is. "Not as bad" doesn't fucking mean that it is not a problem. It just means that it's comparatively less world-encompassing. It's still a problem. The real aim of my post was against asking such dumb questions as, quote:

The real question is whether Islam's written ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims. And, from that, whether Islamic ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims.

, because the answer is fucking obvious to anyone that has read history on ideologies.

Really, the only reason I can see behind posting something like that is baiting for "pro-Islam" people, which seems to be the leading hypothesis at this point, given how you've immediately started to accuse me of saying that "it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert".

well i'm not the fish you're looking for

[nullBolt]

"I don't really understand" it is. "Not as bad" doesn't fucking mean that it is not a problem. It just means that it's comparatively less world-encompassing. It's still a problem. The real aim of my post was against asking such dumb questions as, quote:

The real question is whether Islam's written ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims. And, from that, whether Islamic ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims.

, because the answer is fucking obvious to anyone that has read history on ideologies.

Really, the only reason I can see behind posting something like that is baiting for "pro-Islam" people, which seems to be the leading hypothesis at this point, given how you've immediately started to accuse me of saying that "it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert".

well i'm not the fish you're looking for

Except to claim that Jainism, Buddhism or even Christianity are inherently violent ideologies is completely and utterly wrong.

[smjjames]

Do you think it's appropriate for Europeans to come in and start educating the USA about gun control after every mass shooting, for example? I don't. It's your thing to deal with, not ours. Similarly, I don't personally grant a huge degree of credence to, for example, some guy from the USA who's never heard of Rotherham when he starts telling me how to deal with our racial issues in this country.

There's no way to test for whether someone legitimately knows 'enough' about whatever culture they're discussing, obviously, so I suppose you have to assume people know what they're talking about until they demonstrate that they don't.

It wouldn't be real appropriate, no (and we'd tell you to bug off), but our politicians could use a lession or two in how to do proper gun control. Or at least a lession or two in how to compromise

"I don't really understand" it is. "Not as bad" doesn't fucking mean that it is not a problem. It just means that it's comparatively less world-encompassing. It's still a problem. The real aim of my post was against asking such dumb questions as, quote:

The real question is whether Islam's written ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims. And, from that, whether Islamic ideology is inherently violent against non-Muslims.

, because the answer is fucking obvious to anyone that has read history on ideologies.

Really, the only reason I can see behind posting something like that is baiting for "pro-Islam" people, which seems to be the leading hypothesis at this point, given how you've immediately started to accuse me of saying that "it's okay if the Qur'an states any non-Muslims put to the sword if they don't forcibly convert".

well i'm not the fish you're looking for

Except to claim that Jainism, Buddhism or even Christianity are inherently violent ideologies is completely and utterly wrong.

Christianity and Buddhism have been used as an excuse for war or have been done under the banner of god as often as Islam has. It doesn't make them inherently violent though.

[Sergarr]

Except to claim that Jainism, Buddhism or even Christianity are inherently violent ideologies is completely and utterly wrong.

Every ideology is inherently violent in response to any ideology that contradicts it. No exceptions.

EDIT: At least, among those who have survived for any measurable period of time.

[Loud Whispers]

I was more skeptical about conservatives suddenly affecting a deep concern for the treatment of livestock. Usually they're the ones telling animal rights people to give it a rest.

Honestly, the concern is not deep, I give little thought to animal welfare; least of all for animals destined for the dinner plate. I do however have a deep respect for them, and I do believe more people should understand and be thankful for what had to die in order to feed them, if you haven't killed your food before or seen a slaughter meat is just meat, but after that it's much more meaningful.
I also find we should treat cows better, though that's just some Hindu influence from childhood (I am quite biased for cows), I believe we should get rid of cosmetic testing on animals (but medical is completely fine) and I think if we're going to slaughter animals in such large numbers we should do them the courtesy of making death swift.

What madness is this
I find myself in agreement with you. Probably because I'm tired so it's harder for my brain to make reasoning errors without telling me about it. Also probably because I give fewer pats about cow suffering than I do about human suffering. Or something.
But also because ease/capability of affecting halal/Jewish animal slaughter to be more human or whatever or reduce amount is somewhat more easily accomplished than reducing failure rates. I would not consider saying it would be twenty times easier to be an exaggeration.
Numbers helps too, probably. Oh! And simple solution proposed.
This is the only way I can rationalize my possibly actually being convinced of something on the Internet forums where I come to try and be convinced of things.

2016 is the year for rarities it seems. I don't think there's a lot of people who place animal suffering above human suffering (I've only ever met one person to do so, and she was completely bonkers) but this is a really quick and easy solution, that does not even violate kosher or halal principles ;D
Very rare is it to find a solution that literally keeps  everyone happy

A few months ago I would have agreed with you. Then these stories (English) started surfacing, and it turned out that the sources I had dismissed out of hand as "obscure, questionable and highly biased" had been the ones telling the truth all along.

I must admit I don't like the way things turned out, it was a thoroughly unsettling shaking of everything we knew and took for granted.

For that matter, some historians argue that the only reason Europe isn't Islamic today is because Charles Martel pushed back the Umayyad caliphate in the Battle of Tours (AD 732).

Well duh, then you've got the endless slave raids on Russians, Poles and Ukrainians up until the Cossacks finally BTFO the Crimeans, or the Barbary Corsair raids that depopulated the French and Spanish coast, the Balkan slavery or East African Arab slave trade, or the cheeki genocidal run through India. The Ottomans also kinda fucked up when they abandoned their last siege of Vienna, they reasoned they had been the undisputed power for so long they could just come back any time they wanted to complete their conquest of Europe, only by then the European powers had industrialized.

Also, almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies. Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy. Hell, even the traditionally portrayed as "peaceful" ideologies - like Buddhism - are not free of violence in the name of ideology. So that question is not "real", it's just stupid.

There is a profound difference between a religion started by a Carpenter and a religion started by a Statesman, I find it quite interesting how short term solutions that were put in effect by Muhammed or the Rashidun Caliphate turned out to not be so short term, creating the precedence for Jihad as invasion, the notion of the infidel being against God, apostasy warranting death, special taxes for the people of the book
There is a big difference between an ideology used for violence and one which has uses of violence by design

[Rolepgeek]

There's plenty of Christian bible verses about just war and the like, and taking up the sword, usually in defense of Christianity. Islam goes into a bit more detail on the subject, and is currently primarily based in rather poor, strife-torn regions, which leads unsurprisingly to violent interpretations. Plus the whole 'very traditional culture focused on one's history and family' which easily leads to resentment for things from several hundred years ago or more, and means any change introduced by outsiders (or insiders, for that matter) is liable to be viewed with extreme hostility.

As for settlement of America....Gold, God, and Glory. Spain had plenty of religious reasons riding alongside those socio-economic reasons. (and I would be disappointed if you said you thought Mid-Eastern Islam's current behavior/stance was purely because of the nature of the religion and had nothing to do with similar socio-economic stuff(and no, that doesn't justify it, which I always end up having to say))

Oh and Christianity is ideologically violent against other ideologies even if it isn't inherently physically violent. Missionaries and 'God is the One True God, and there is no God but He' is an act of war, ideologically speaking. Wouldn't have gotten so popular/stayed mostly the same, otherwise, really.

Buddha was prince, Loud Whisper you sayin Buddha was more violent than Jesus? Do we need to have a peace-off here? Gandhi will wreck you shit scrub he's so peaceful get nukd m8

[Sergarr]

Also, almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies. Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy. Hell, even the traditionally portrayed as "peaceful" ideologies - like Buddhism - are not free of violence in the name of ideology. So that question is not "real", it's just stupid.

There is a profound difference between a religion started by a Carpenter and a religion started by a Statesman, I find it quite interesting how short term solutions that were put in effect by Muhammed or the Rashidun Caliphate turned out to not be so short term, creating the precedence for Jihad as invasion, the notion of the infidel being against God, apostasy warranting death, special taxes for the people of the book
There is a big difference between an ideology used for violence and one which has uses of violence by design

Every ideology that has survived past its inception has incorporated violence as a method of self-preservation against ideologies antagonistic to it and heresies.  While there is certainly a degree of difference between Islam and most other modern religions, that difference is simply because modern Islam is significantly more invasive in society and thus it has more antagonistic to it ideologies and heresies to combat. A matter of scale.

[Reelya]

Erdogan is not a good source to quote, he says and does some pretty screwed up shit:

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=a-muslim-can-never-commit-genocide-erdogan-defends-bashir-2009-11-08

The statement came hours after Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan defended al-Bashir’s visit by saying, “A Muslim can never commit genocide.”

He's about as credible on the subject of muslims as a holocaust denier is on WWII. When he said "there are no moderate and immoderate muslims, only muslims", he wasn't saying that all muslims were fundamentalist extremists, he was claiming that there are no extremists in the first place. As such, he has zero credibility on this issue.