Realism Cannot Be Realistic

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

Your thesis is basically bad people will do bad things more often if influenced by bad ideologies.

Hardly ground breaking material is it? Why no crusade against violence on TV or hate speech? You'd be better off engaging in such things before looking at the particular case of the doctrine of Islam, and you've also conflated the two separate themes. One being a critique against Islam and the other a critique against The Quran. Obviously related, but not all Muslims view The Quran as the soel definiting item of Islamic thought. Just like we've discussed before it is a question of this religion going through the motions of social change and reform (people have been dragged into the modern world where western Judeo-Christian society has moved through a great deal of problems to get to where it is today.

I would ask for a comparison of ... if someone reads The Quran and then watches Tom and Jerry and someone who read The Bible and then watches Fight Club. Which person is more likely to engage in violent acts or be inspired toward more violent acts? Is someone who watches porn more or less likely to commit rape? WHat evidence is there to back this up?

What does this have to do with the OP? Anything anymore? Have you had to resort to this before MODS don't post your threads? If so I will become a mod for a short period of time and you can have your threads commented on by me and I'll do my damned best to get them posted.

[Spectrum]

Spectrum -
Your thesis is basically bad people will do bad things more often if influenced by bad ideologies.
Hardly ground breaking material is it?

Why no crusade against violence on TV or hate speech? You'd be better off engaging in such things before looking at the particular case of the doctrine of Islam, and you've also conflated the two separate themes. One being a critique against Islam and the other a critique against The Quran. Obviously related, but not all Muslims view The Quran as the sole defining item of Islamic thought. Just like we've discussed before it is a question of this religion going through the motions of social change and reform (people have been dragged into the modern world where western Judeo-Christian society has moved through a great deal of problems to get to where it is today.

Btw, have you done a proper academic thesis before?
One of the most critical process in a proper thesis is Problem Definition which must be very clear, specific and as as manageable as possible.

In my case,
I recognize there are all sorts of evil [you prefer 'bad'] acts in the World by evil prone people being influenced by evil laden ideology.
Obviously humanity need to resolve, eliminate, reduce and prevent ALL evil acts in the World.

But effective problem solving is the ability to break down the whole problem into manageable units.

As a matter of effectiveness, I have categorized all evils in the World into the following two main categories;

• 1. Secular related evils
  2. Religious related evils.

1. Secular related evils
There are tons of type of evils within the secular world and your 'violence on TV or hate speech' are merely drop in the ocean of evils.
If you survey, you will note different people are researching and finding solutions to the various secular evils. I don't have sufficient expertise to deal with secular evils and I am not interested in them at present.

2. Religious related evils.
Religious related evils are the other types of all evils in the World.
Religious evil can be categorized in terms of;

• 1. Judaism related evils
  2. Christianity related evils
  3 Islam related evils
  4. Hinduism related evils
  5. Taoism related evils
  6. Other religion related evils.

It is obvious, it is too massive to deal with all the evils of all religion for a thesis project, thus the need to narrow the problem further.

A rough survey of all religious related evils, one will note those evil related to Islam represent a significant % of the whole. This is so obvious as we can read of them in the News almost on a daily basis.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Note the Statistic in the above site, today it is 31,701 deadly terrorists attacks since 911. On the right side of this site are the daily evil acts [not fatal] committed by evil prone Muslims on a daily basis.
31,701 is a very scary figure, even if we reduce that to 20% it is still a frightening figure.

It is this statistics that drive me to find out WHY?
I feel I have the expertise and knowledge to deal with problem due to my strong background in Philosophy and reasonable knowledge of all the mainstream religion.
To enhance my competence I have spent nearly 3 years FULL TIME to research on the religion Islam.
So if I can contribute in an effective way to understand and thus to resolve the Problem of Islamic related evils, why should I shut up?

I am well aware from your post your knowledge of Islam and its evil ethos is very lacking. I think I have suggest you read the Quran [at least 20 times A-Z]. In addition, I don't think you bothered to read about Islam and its evil activities.

Obviously related, but not all Muslims view The Quran as the sole defining item of Islamic thought.

Your point is totally invalid as far as Islam is concern. It is not what Muslims view as Islam but what Allah the all-powerful intended Islam to be.
Just as what is American is represented by the American Constitution, what is Islam is represented by the core doctrine from Allah, i.e. the Quran and nothing else plus Allah had said so. It is Allah that define in the Quran what is Islam and not what the believers [Muslims] decide what Islam is.
This is why to understand precisely what is Islam, the only source to do so is the Quran and no where else.

I had mentioned before, there are 3 main categories of Muslims and their Islam, i.e.

• 1. Pure Islam & Muslims - adopt only the Quran
  2. Pseudo Islam & Muslims -adopt the Quran with emphasis on the Ahadith
  3. Fringe Islam & Muslims - adopt the Quran, the Ahadith and their own prophets other than Muhammad.

My thesis claim Pure Islam itself is inherently evil and inspire SOME Muslims who are evil prone to commit terrible evils, terror and violence [proofs provided].
Pseudo Islam is worst with its added emphasis of evil elements.
As for Fringe Islam, some [Ahmadiyya] bend toward pacifism while others [Wahabi] veer toward more perverted evils.

The above is the reason why I have decided to focus on Islam-related evils, others can focus on other religious and secular evils.

I would ask for a comparison of ... if someone reads The Quran and then watches Tom and Jerry and someone who read The Bible and then watches Fight Club. Which person is more likely to engage in violent acts or be inspired toward more violent acts? Is someone who watches porn more or less likely to commit rape? WHat evidence is there to back this up?

Will anyone who watched Tom and Jerry with its 'cartoonic' type of violence be willing to kill his/her own son? NO!
But the evil prone believers of certain religions like Islam has the potential and willing to kill even their own sons if called upon by their God. Now Allah in the Quran has promoted, condoned and exhorted Muslims to kill non-Muslims merely that they disbelieved Islam!
These are the evidences why Islam is SO evil and a danger to humanity, thus warrant the necessary research to find out 'WHY' and finding a solution to this serious danger.

What does this have to do with the OP? Anything anymore? Have you had to resort to this before MODS don't post your threads? If so I will become a mod for a short period of time and you can have your threads commented on by me and I'll do my damned best to get them posted.

We are doing applied philosophy in this case.
When Philosophical Realism is wrongly accepted as the real thing one of its ugly manifestation is theistic evils, in this case Islamic related evil. So instead of merely discussing theories on realism we have extended to its practical aspects and its consequences.
I believe the practical is more important than the theory of it.
Given the experience I am hesitant to waste my time raising OPs. Will contact you if need to.

[Londoner]

Note my views above are not based on opinions but rather on empirical facts, i.e.

• 1. What is genocide [as defined] and that genocide has been committed by various 'evil' people is an empirical fact. The large numbers of humans killed and the brutality associated with genocides are empirical facts.

A definition is a fact about the word; it describes how the word is used. It doesn't give us any empirical facts about what the word refers to. For example, we can define 'unicorn' but it does not tell us any empirical fact about any unicorn, indeed there are no empirical facts.

So all you have done is tell us how the word 'genocide' is used.

2. The hashness of condemnation of genocides by society in general is an empirical fact.

It would be an empirical fact about those societies, their opinions, not about the genocide. Nor is it a useful fact, since calling it a 'genocide' already contains the moral condemnation, just as calling a killing 'murder' already contains the moral judgement that it is wrong.

But the problem is that societies do not agree what counts as 'murder' or 'genocide'. We are currently seeing the mass killings of Muslims in Myanmar. The Myanmar regime could agree that we should condemn 'genocide' but say that what they are doing was not genocide.

3. The seriousness of genocides as dealt by various war tribunals, i.e. the description, the charge and penalties are an empirical fact....

Except that sometimes they aren't. During the age of imperialism, people were not punished for wars against the natives. Nazi courts did not punish Nazis, nobody brought Stalin to trial. So, the empirical fact would be that sometimes those responsible for genocide/killing lots of people are rewarded with wealth, and honours, and monuments in the town square.

4. There are a tons of other facts related to genocide.

'Facts related to genocide'? Sure. But have you any facts that can be objectively quantified, such that you we can all look at an event, count some empirical facts, and say they total '87% evil'? Nope.

Me: So if I 'rate' it in a different way to you, no observation we could make to say my rating is wrong and yours is right.

As I mentioned based on available empirical facts of genocides [1-4 above], your rating [if average] will not deviate significantly from mine.

Really? So Nazis and Jews must have also both have agreed about 'rating' the 'evilness' value of the Holocaust? And Myamar and the Rohingya?

You haven't thought this through at all.

[Spectrum]

Note my views above are not based on opinions but rather on empirical facts, i.e.

• 1. What is genocide [as defined] and that genocide has been committed by various 'evil' people is an empirical fact. The large numbers of humans killed and the brutality associated with genocides are empirical facts.

A definition is a fact about the word; it describes how the word is used. It doesn't give us any empirical facts about what the word refers to. For example, we can define 'unicorn' but it does not tell us any empirical fact about any unicorn, indeed there are no empirical facts.

So all you have done is tell us how the word 'genocide' is used.

2. The hashness of condemnation of genocides by society in general is an empirical fact.

It would be an empirical fact about those societies, their opinions, not about the genocide. Nor is it a useful fact, since calling it a 'genocide' already contains the moral condemnation, just as calling a killing 'murder' already contains the moral judgement that it is wrong.

But the problem is that societies do not agree what counts as 'murder' or 'genocide'. We are currently seeing the mass killings of Muslims in Myanmar. The Myanmar regime could agree that we should condemn 'genocide' but say that what they are doing was not genocide.

3. The seriousness of genocides as dealt by various war tribunals, i.e. the description, the charge and penalties are an empirical fact....

Except that sometimes they aren't. During the age of imperialism, people were not punished for wars against the natives. Nazi courts did not punish Nazis, nobody brought Stalin to trial. So, the empirical fact would be that sometimes those responsible for genocide/killing lots of people are rewarded with wealth, and honours, and monuments in the town square.

4. There are a tons of other facts related to genocide.

'Facts related to genocide'? Sure. But have you any facts that can be objectively quantified, such that you we can all look at an event, count some empirical facts, and say they total '87% evil'? Nope.

Me: So if I 'rate' it in a different way to you, no observation we could make to say my rating is wrong and yours is right.

As I mentioned based on available empirical facts of genocides [1-4 above], your rating [if average] will not deviate significantly from mine.

Really? So Nazis and Jews must have also both have agreed about 'rating' the 'evilness' value of the Holocaust? And Myamar and the Rohingya?

You haven't thought this through at all.

I am well prepared for the above.
I believe the average person understand what the term "genocide" refers to, i.e. large numbers of people are killed as driven by some ideology or some perverted human behaviors.

In a forum like this I can only start with general ideas and I have no intention to get into the very detailed.
But if you want precision there is no issue with it.

I believe there is no issue to accept what the UN defined as Genocide.

The United Nations Genocide Convention, which was established in 1948, defines genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
https://en.wikIpedia.org/wiki/Genocide

I suggest you read the above article to get an idea the current global understanding of what represent a genocide.

To be more precise we can grade the genocide based on the numbers killed.

I believe genocide is the worst [if not one of the top 3] evil humans has ever committed on other humans. Can you tell what is worst than genocide?

Really? So Nazis and Jews must have also both have agreed about 'rating' the 'evilness' value of the Holocaust?

Are there any serious controversies [other than perverted deniers] regarding the UN identifying the Holocaust of the Jews are a genocide?
The bias views of the Nazis or Jews are irrelevant.
The UN view is objective based actual number of Jews killed and on global consensus by the majority of Nations.

I have gone through this before.
On a continuum of evil [no problem if you want to use 'bad'] from 1 to 100 max, I would rate the genocide in general at 90% evil and petty crimes at 10%. As I had stated I have no issue if the variation at both extreme is +/-10%. What is the issue with that?

You did not reply. I ask, would you rate genocide-in-general at 30% evil and petty crimes at 10%?

Note:
So far you have not managed to punch any holes in my thesis.
But since you raised it I will add some precision in my premise.

Earlier I stated,
20% of all humans [including Muslims] are born with an active evil tendency.
I will revise it to;
20% of all humans [including Muslims] are born with an active evil tendency to commit evil of at least 75% evil-ness.
This is a potential [theoretical] of 300 million evil prone Muslims. Note how frightening this crazy quantum is, when it only took 18++ to do a 911.

I rate genocide at 90%+ and petty crimes at 10%.
At 75% evilness, the evil prone are very aggressive, violent, with a tendency to kill, rape, torture, kidnap, threatened terror, or injure one or a few victims plus commit other 75% evils

• .

[Londoner]

I believe the average person understand what the term "genocide" refers to, i.e. large numbers of people are killed as driven by some ideology or some perverted human behaviors.

Yes, they know what the word refers to. If necessary they can look it up in a dictionary.

But that does not tell us the 'percentage evil'

To be more precise we can grade the genocide based on the numbers killed.

Precise? Do you really mean that? Are you saying that the 'percentage evil' is obtained by counting the numbers killed. OK. Then you tend to rate genocide at around 90%, I think. What number of dead people does that number equate to?

Are there any serious controversies [other than perverted deniers] regarding the UN identifying the Holocaust of the Jews are a genocide?
The bias views of the Nazis or Jews are irrelevant.
The UN view is objective based actual number of Jews killed and on global consensus by the majority of Nations.

And now you are back to being imprecise again! When you say 'global consensus by the majority of Nations' do you mean consensus on the number? Or consensus that the Holocaust was morally evil?

Because if your 'percentage evil' means the same as 'number killed' then it is just a brute fact. The word 'evil' then means 'X quantity killed', it contains no moral judgement.

Whereas if it involved a moral judgement, then you cannot have your number, because now two different things are involved, the quantity killed and peoples' moral feelings about them being killed.

You are going to need two separate scales. I notice your 'feelings' scale is already compromised as objective evidence, since you have disregarded the feelings of Nazis (and Jews!) as irrelevant!

And even if you came up with a 'feelings' figure, in order to provide your 'evilness' figure you would have to combine it with the 'number killed' figure. But in what proportions? We can only objectively compare things against a single scale. Otherwise you have to decide how to adjust the 'number killed' scale depending on the 'feelings' scale. It might be that two identical genocides had different quantities of 'evil' because people felt stronger about one than the other. You will need some sort of conversion factor, so we multiply 'number killed' by the 'feeling factor' to get the 'evilness'.

Perhaps you could give some sort of worked example. We could look at what happened to native Americans. You will presumably count the dead, then factor in the 'global consensus' (At the time? Or now? Do we include the feelings of the Native Americans or won't their opinions count, since as the victims they will be biased?) So please show the maths and tell us the quantity of 'evil'.

You did not reply. I ask, would you rate genocide-in-general at 30% evil and petty crimes at 10%?

No, because being sane and not a religious nutcase I do not think 'evil' is a substance, such that we can count it.

Earlier I stated,
20% of all humans [including Muslims] are born with an active evil tendency.
I will revise it to;
20% of all humans [including Muslims] are born with an active evil tendency to commit evil of at least 75% evil-ness.
This is a potential [theoretical] of 300 million evil prone Muslims. Note how frightening this crazy quantum is, when it only took 18++ to do a 911.

And you have never shown what it is in those newborn babies that corresponds to 'active evil tendency'. Can you not understand? When you give a number like 20% you must be counting something!

I'll have to guess. It can't be 'dead people' yet, because those babies haven't killed anyone. It can't be 'global consensus by the majority of Nations' because the global consensus is that all babies are sweet innocent things.

But perhaps you got your figure by working backwards, looking at what 20% of humans do with their lives when they are grown up? Let's see what 75% evil amounts to:

At 75% evilness, the evil prone are very aggressive, violent, with a tendency to kill, rape, torture, kidnap, threatened terror, or injure one or a few victims plus commit other 75% evils.

Really? You think that describes how 20% of humanity behaves? No wonder you spend so long on these boards. I don't suppose you ever leave the house!

[Spectrum]

I believe the average person understand what the term "genocide" refers to, i.e. large numbers of people are killed as driven by some ideology or some perverted human behaviors.

Yes, they know what the word refers to. If necessary they can look it up in a dictionary.
But that does not tell us the 'percentage evil'

As I had stated somewhere, to resolve problem objectively and effectively it is imperative we quantify the critical variables in a reasonable way.

With reference to the 'evil' [bad & the likes] variable,
I determine the worst evil that has been committed by mankind [e.g. genocide and rate it at >90%] and determine the least petty evil [petty 'bad' acts] and rate them at <10%.
From the limits of the worst and the least petty, we can estimate the % in between for other types of evil acts.
On that basis what is wrong if I determine 'genocide' is 90/100 of evilness with a +/- 10% variation.

To be more precise we can grade the genocide based on the numbers killed.

Precise? Do you really mean that? Are you saying that the 'percentage evil' is obtained by counting the numbers killed. OK. Then you tend to rate genocide at around 90%, I think. What number of dead people does that number equate to?

Yes, we can correlate the % of evilness to the numbers of people killed in relation to an evil act [as defined]. I stated 'more precise' i.e. better than crude guessing.

Here List_of_genocides_by_death_toll
https://en.wik1pedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll
https://en.wik1pedia.org/wiki/Genocide_ ... is_by_ISIL
The least number of death is estimated between 2,100 to 4000 and the highest 11 -17 million.
I have to determine what is the minimum number of death to qualify as 'genocide' the numbers for it to consider a mass murder.

Based on empirical evidence and consensus of the UN so far, what is termed genocide [90% evilness] is where the number of death exceed say 2,000.

So there is no issue with % of evilness and numbers in relation to 'genocide'.
The latest genocide is that of the Yazidis and I will prove the basis of this is traceable to the Quran, i.e. words of Allah.

Are there any serious controversies [other than perverted deniers] regarding the UN identifying the Holocaust of the Jews are a genocide?
The bias views of the Nazis or Jews are irrelevant.
The UN view is objective based actual number of Jews killed and on global consensus by the majority of Nations.

And now you are back to being imprecise again! When you say 'global consensus by the majority of Nations' do you mean consensus on the number? Or consensus that the Holocaust was morally evil?

The consensus of what is genocide is a consensus by the UN [the majority of Nations].
Genocide implied a minimal number of people killed. Surely 1,2 or 10 deaths cannot be termed genocide. This is common sense.
As I had highlighted above the minimum number of people killed of a recognized genocide in the listing is 2,100. We can use this number for a start and I believe it can go as low as 500 to qualify as genocide. Less than that it is a type of mass murder, e.g. Rev Jim Jones.'

Because if your 'percentage evil' means the same as 'number killed' then it is just a brute fact. The word 'evil' then means 'X quantity killed', it contains no moral judgement.

No, I think state 'percentage evil' means the same as 'number killed' absolutely. This is only in reference to genocide. In a serial killing of many [>5] with extensive torture and sexual assault I will rate this at 90% evilness.
Note I have stated I will produce a taxonomy of evil acts and chart them relatively to scale of evilness.

Why no moral element?
The killing of one human by another human is a moral factor.
I have rated killing of one at 75% evilness and that % increases with the numbers killed.

Whereas if it involved a moral judgement, then you cannot have your number, because now two different things are involved, the quantity killed and peoples' moral feelings about them being killed.

As I had stated, the killing of another human being is by default a moral issue. The numbers killed will determine the severity of the moral issue, i.e. % of evilness. Whether killing is justified or not, is not a moral [Pure] issue but rather a ethical [Applied] or judicial issue [Kant].

You are going to need two separate scales. I notice your 'feelings' scale is already compromised as objective evidence, since you have disregarded the feelings of Nazis (and Jews!) as irrelevant!

Is the UN definition of genocide with its implied large number of people killed based on the feeling of the Nazis and Jews. No, it is based on the collective consensus of the present and what is supposedly inhumane and immoral.

And even if you came up with a 'feelings' figure, in order to provide your 'evilness' figure you would have to combine it with the 'number killed' figure. But in what proportions? We can only objectively compare things against a single scale. Otherwise you have to decide how to adjust the 'number killed' scale depending on the 'feelings' scale. It might be that two identical genocides had different quantities of 'evil' because people felt stronger about one than the other. You will need some sort of conversion factor, so we multiply 'number killed' by the 'feeling factor' to get the 'evilness'.

Perhaps you could give some sort of worked example. We could look at what happened to native Americans. You will presumably count the dead, then factor in the 'global consensus' (At the time? Or now? Do we include the feelings of the Native Americans or won't their opinions count, since as the victims they will be biased?) So please show the maths and tell us the quantity of 'evil'.

I have already done the maths above, i.e.

• 1. Genocide is defined per the UN definition.
  2. I rated genocide at 90/100 evilness against petty evil at 10/100.
  ....100/100 or 100% evilness is where the whole human species is exterminated by nuclear bombs.
  3. What constitute genocide by numbers is based on the toll [empirically estimated] and the minimum so far is 2,100. There should be an agreed minimum somewhere [to find]?
  4. So the minimum requirement for a genocide is - 2,100 killed with a rating of 90% evilness.
  5. The above minimal % can be adjusted by various contexts if need to. E.g. we can rate the Holocaust as genocide at 95% due to the significant large number of death in comparison to the other genocides. I would add 10% extra to any genocide driven by specific religious ideology due to it viral factor.

You did not reply. I ask, would you rate genocide-in-general at 30% evil and petty crimes at 10%?

No, because being sane and not a religious nutcase I do not think 'evil' is a substance, such that we can count it.

Who is talking about an evil substance.
I had defined 'evil' based on the empirical acts and thoughts of human[s].

And you have never shown what it is in those newborn babies that corresponds to 'active evil tendency'.

I'll have to guess. It can't be 'dead people' yet, because those babies haven't killed anyone. It can't be 'global consensus by the majority of Nations' because the global consensus is that all babies are sweet innocent things.

But perhaps you got your figure by working backwards, looking at what 20% of humans do with their lives when they are grown up?

When we predict 20% of all humans are born with an active evil tendency, the term 'born' here implied the newborn babies who will grow up with an active evil tendency and are ready to commit evil acts therefrom.

Yes, I estimated the above from empirical facts of what the 100% adults did.

Can you not understand? When you give a number like 20% you must be counting something!

Can you not understand, when I say 20% it mean 2 in 10 people. Isn't that counting?
We do not exactly who but we have a high confidence level 2 in 10 are likely to commit evil acts with 75% evilness.

As Applied in Practice:
20% of all humans [incl Muslims] are born with an evil tendency to commit evil of 75% evil-ness.
If any one were to draw cartoons of Muhammad in a city square full of people in Afghanistan, then we are confident the artist will be lynched by at least 20% of people in the square to death or severely beaten. As I had stated 20% is conservative, in that circumstances and location is likely >60% of people will participate in killing or injuring the artist.
Such prediction of evil are thus useful as warning to potential evils.

Note this

60% of People Can't Go 10 Minutes Without Lying
BY KATHY BENJAMIN MAY 7, 2012

There are two things you can say for sure about human beings: our opposable thumbs make us great at using tools, and we are all big, fat liars. By age four, 90% of children have grasped the concept of lying, and it just gets worse from there.

Just how bad is it? According to a 2002 study conducted by the University of Massachusetts, 60% of adults can’t have a ten minute conversation without lying at least once. But even that number makes it sound better than it really is; those people in the study who did lie actually told an average of 3 lies during their brief chat. And I know you’re sitting there right now insisting you would be part of the 40% that didn’t lie. That’s what the liars in the study thought, too. When they watched the taped conversations back, they were shocked at how many fibs they had told.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/30609/60 ... hout-lying

My premise of 20% of the above is the same in principle as the above study.
So what sort of counting do you expect the above 60% to be counted?

I have rated Lying [assume petty] is 10% evilness in relation to 90% for genocide.
Another point is all my ratings must be referenced to both 90% for genocide and 10% for petty evil.

At 75% evilness, the evil prone are very aggressive, violent, with a tendency to kill, rape, torture, kidnap, threatened terror, or injure one or a few victims plus commit other 75% evils.

Really? You think that describes how 20% of humanity behaves?

It is not how 20% of humanity behaves.
From the study reference we got a clue 60% of adults lie [petty at 10% evilness]. The percentage could be higher for petty lying.
From the above, I estimated 20%, i.e. 20 in 100 people will likely commit evils like killing some another human, kidnapping, injure others and the likes rated at 75% evilness.

No wonder you spend so long on these boards. I don't suppose you ever leave the house!

I had retired early and I spent 7-8 hours researching and doing my project. I am also an exercise, health and fitness fanatic.
I was not active on this board for years, it is only recently where I had spend 2+ hours on this board which is eating into my other projects' full time on Islam.
It is you who drag me to spend longer than usual time. Note I have answered all your questions soundly. It you have thought deeply and widely you would have find the answers yourself.
Note what I had presented so far are merely tip-of-icebergs. I am trying to confine my discussion to the surface and avoid going deeper like the above to avoid spending to much time on it.

To be more clearer and easier for readers of understand I will present my second premise as follows;

• 1. DNA wise, All humans has the potential to commit evils [as defined]
  2. 80% [estimated] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency to commit act of 10% evilness [i.e. petty evils like lying, cheating, stealing[bread], etc.]
  3. 20% [estimated] of all humans are born with an active evil tendency to commit act of 75% evilness [killing a human, injuring another, kidnapping, torture, etc.]

[Londoner]

As I had stated somewhere, to resolve problem objectively and effectively it is imperative we quantify the critical variables in a reasonable way.

With reference to the 'evil' [bad & the likes] variable,
I determine the worst evil that has been committed by mankind [e.g. genocide and rate it at >90%] and determine the least petty evil [petty 'bad' acts] and rate them at <10%.
From the limits of the worst and the least petty, we can estimate the % in between for other types of evil acts.
On that basis what is wrong if I determine 'genocide' is 90/100 of evilness with a +/- 10% variation.

In the first sentence you write 'objectively'. In the second you write 'I determine'. Objective things are not things we individually determine.

Can you not understand, when I say 20% it mean 2 in 10 people. Isn't that counting?

No, explaining what 20% means is not the same as counting. Suppose I asked you how many apples there were on the plate. Would you reply '50% means half'?

To be more precise we can grade the genocide based on the numbers killed.

Followed in the next post by

So there is no issue with % of evilness and numbers in relation to 'genocide'.

Followed by later in the same post

No, I think state 'percentage evil' means the same as 'number killed' absolutely. This is only in reference to genocide. In a serial killing of many [>5] with extensive torture and sexual assault I will rate this at 90% evilness.

So is the evil percentage calculated from the number killed? We are no wiser.

As I had stated, the killing of another human being is by default a moral issue. The numbers killed will determine the severity of the moral issue, i.e. % of evilness. Whether killing is justified or not, is not a moral [Pure] issue but rather a ethical [Applied] or judicial issue [Kant].

OK. So when you say something is '90% evil', you are not saying it is necessarily immoral.

The genocide may not be a moral [Pure] issue at all....and yet the numbers killed (a) determine the severity of the moral issue.

So a genocide can simultaneously be 90% evil... but also ethically justified.

You don't think anyone will have a problem reconciling these claims?

Me: Perhaps you could give some sort of worked example. We could look at what happened to native Americans. You will presumably count the dead, then factor in the 'global consensus' (At the time? Or now? Do we include the feelings of the Native Americans or won't their opinions count, since as the victims they will be biased?) So please show the maths and tell us the quantity of 'evil'.

I have already done the maths above, i.e.

• 1. Genocide is defined per the UN definition.
  2. I rated genocide at 90/100 evilness against petty evil at 10/100.
  ....100/100 or 100% evilness is where the whole human species is exterminated by nuclear bombs.
  3. What constitute genocide by numbers is based on the toll [empirically estimated] and the minimum so far is 2,100. There should be an agreed minimum somewhere [to find]?
  4. So the minimum requirement for a genocide is - 2,100 killed with a rating of 90% evilness.
  5. The above minimal % can be adjusted by various contexts if need to. E.g. we can rate the Holocaust as genocide at 95% due to the significant large number of death in comparison to the other genocides. I would add 10% extra to any genocide driven by specific religious ideology due to it viral factor.

- If 100% evilness would be the whole human species exterminated, then killing 2,100 people, or even the Holocaust, is going to be much less than 90%.

- If one petty crime (later you give the example of 'lying') is 10% evil, then telling ten lies would be as evil as exterminating humanity.

- 95% evil for the genocide plus 10% extra (if 'driven by specific religious ideology due to it viral factor') comes to over 100%.

We do not exactly who but we have a high confidence level 2 in 10 are likely to commit evil acts with 75% evilness.

OK. 20% of humans are 75% evil. And 75% evilness is killing 1750 people (or only 1590 if you qualify for the 10% religious ideology bonus)

There is a problem; the most the 20% of us with the 75% evilness can kill is 4 - otherwise we will run out victims! How can we hit our target?

Sometimes we get religious enthusiasts on such boards who come out with strange theories, like yours. At some point people leave them alone because it becomes too much like taunting the inmate of an asylum. I think I have reached that point with you...at least for now.

Moderator comment - Please do not accuse another of being insane.

[Spectrum]

Note:
It would appear you are absolutely ignoring the Principles of Charity but rather used rhetoric at its worst to make me look stupid and foolish. Looks like there is some serious agenda here on your part due to a very sensitive trigger from the zombie parasite.

Note these are very stupid counters;
Londoner: 95% evil for the genocide plus 10% extra (if 'driven by specific religious ideology due to it viral factor') comes to over 100%.
Why don't you counter if 100%, with +10% then it is 110%.

Londoner: If one petty crime (later you give the example of 'lying') is 10% evil, then telling ten lies would be as evil as exterminating humanity.

I have already explained this particular point where we can add weightage to deal with such linearity.
In a forum like this I have to use rough examples, if you insist on linearity and rigor I would revise petty evils to be 0.1% to whatever figures that will make linear sense and acceptable to most. My intent is not to go into the finest details but present a rough picture which can be polished later.
I have already stated what I have presented is the rough picture and most of the points are tip-of-icebergs.

Point is by trying to make my views stupid, you are actually reflecting that state in yourself when you ignore the Principle of Charity.

As I had stated somewhere, to resolve problem objectively and effectively it is imperative we quantify the critical variables in a reasonable way.

With reference to the 'evil' [bad & the likes] variable,
I determine the worst evil that has been committed by mankind [e.g. genocide and rate it at >90%] and determine the least petty evil [petty 'bad' acts] and rate them at <10%.
From the limits of the worst and the least petty, we can estimate the % in between for other types of evil acts.
On that basis what is wrong if I determine 'genocide' is 90/100 of evilness with a +/- 10% variation.

In the first sentence you write 'objectively'. In the second you write 'I determine'. Objective things are not things we individually determine.

Again, you are insulting your own intellectual intelligence.

• objective: (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

I am presenting my views as objective as possible [in degrees] rather than based on impulsive subjective psychological driven feelings.
Note I am using numbers and % derived from available empirical fact which is an attempt to be as objective as possible.

Subjective would be something like simply accusing and associating me with "like taunting the inmate of an asylum." Is my presentation so far the same as any one from an asylum would present? Show me the basis and proofs? Seem like your intellectual bubble is cracking when you resort to this.

Can you not understand, when I say 20% it mean 2 in 10 people. Isn't that counting?

No, explaining what 20% means is not the same as counting. Suppose I asked you how many apples there were on the plate. Would you reply '50% means half'?

You are way off here.
Your logic don't follow because apples are physical and what is evil is mental abstract. My attempt is relate the 20% to number of people. Your use of 'counting' is too kindergartenish. The fundamental of this issue, i.e. problem solving is "quantification" or qualitative elements which will involve indirect measurements and counting is merely some very basis process.

So is the evil percentage calculated from the number killed? We are no wiser.

What is the problem with that?
If one person killed is X% of evil then, killing two indicate an increment to the X%, i.e. X% + Y%. Thus if 1,000,000 are killed obviously the incremental % of evilness will be much higher. The maximum % is 100% and we can determine the number killed for 100%.

As I had stated, the killing of another human being is by default a moral issue. The numbers killed will determine the severity of the moral issue, i.e. % of evilness. Whether killing is justified or not, is not a moral [Pure] issue but rather a ethical [Applied] or judicial issue [Kant].

OK. So when you say something is '90% evil', you are not saying it is necessarily immoral.
The genocide may not be a moral [Pure] issue at all....and yet the numbers killed (a) determine the severity of the moral issue.
So a genocide can simultaneously be 90% evil... but also ethically justified.
You don't think anyone will have a problem reconciling these claims?

You missed my point here.
What is evil is definitely not-moral - I stated that above, i.e. the killing of another human being is by default a moral issue. Therefore genocide the killing of many is also a moral issue.

So a genocide can simultaneously be 90% evil... but also ethically justified.

This is where your deceptive rhetoric starts.
Where did I say it is ethically justified?
I stated 'whether killing is justified or not' is not a moral issue, it is rather an ethical issue.
Obviously killing is not ethically justified.
I refer to Kant in this case and there are very refined issues to deliberate upon here and I believe these nuance issue are beyond you.

- If 100% evilness would be the whole human species exterminated, then killing 2,100 people, or even the Holocaust, is going to be much less than 90%.

- If one petty crime (later you give the example of 'lying') is 10% evil, then telling ten lies would be as evil as exterminating humanity.

- 95% evil for the genocide plus 10% extra (if 'driven by specific religious ideology due to it viral factor') comes to over 100%.

As I had explained, you are not making any provision for the Principle of Charity here.
My point is to establish the maximum and the minimum points based on empirical facts.
As for the rough numbers and % there is a lot of room for me to adjust them so that they are rational and make sense.

We do not exactly who but we have a high confidence level 2 in 10 are likely to commit evil acts with 75% evilness.

OK. 20% of humans are 75% evil. And 75% evilness is killing 1750 people (or only 1590 if you qualify for the 10% religious ideology bonus)

There is a problem; the most the 20% of us with the 75% evilness can kill is 4 - otherwise we will run out victims! How can we hit our target?

As I said, the numbers I gave so far are rough numbers which can be improved upon and refined so that they can be more rational.

And 75% evilness is killing 1750 people (or only 1590 if you qualify for the 10% religious ideology bonus)

You are inventing it and I have never stated the above.
I gave example of evil acts that are equivalent to 75% evilness and the killing of another human being is one of them. Read again.

[Sometimes we get religious enthusiasts on such boards who come out with strange theories, like yours. At some point people leave them alone because it becomes too much like taunting the inmate of an asylum. I think I have reached that point with you...at least for now.

That is only your subjective opinions and I believe it is heavily psychological.

My points again;

• 1. Realism [philosophical] Cannot Be Realistic [OP]
  
  2. At its extreme it lead to theism based on an illusory entity.
  
  3. Example, in the case of theistic Islam, its evil laden doctrine influence the 20% of evil prone Muslims to commit terrible evil acts [75% evilness] on non-Muslims and even other Muslims. The proofs and evidence of its consequences to this is so glaring.

[Razblo]

Steve3007 (from which you quoted):

...unless they can demonstrate via argument and empirical evidence that the risk (or potential for future risk) is in fact much more significant than it appears at first. If they do that then I'd expect the phobia label to be removed.

Razblo:

Rational hate should hardly be a phobia.

Do you read the things that you quote?

You should quote the quotes of mine you regard as me having not read for there to be any rational debate on your insinuation otherwise the insinuation is irrational.

[Atreyu]

The thread has gotten off topic, but to get back to the original point, it's clear to me that the OP doesn't get Realism. And that is the source of his confusion.

Realism (philosophy) doesn't mean, at all, that you take your perceptions and cognitions of things at face value. Quite the contrary. Realists merely assert that while our perceptions and cognition of an object is entirely subjective, the reason why they perceive/cognize the object in the first place is because there really is something there. It's just that one's particular experience of the object is completely subjective. But in the real objective world, existing outside the boundaries of the human experience, there is actually something (some thing) there.

Realism is actually quite "realistic". It correctly acknowledges the completely subjective nature of our experiences, but it asserts that there actually is something behind (causing) those experiences, i.e. there is something real, even if we cannot ever know what it is due to the limitations of our psychic apparatus.

I hope that clears this up, lol...

[Spectrum]

Realism is actually quite "realistic". It correctly acknowledges the completely subjective nature of our experiences, but it asserts that there actually is something behind (causing) those experiences, i.e. there is something real, even if we cannot ever know what it is due to the limitations of our psychic apparatus.

I hope that clears this up, lol...

Quite "realistic" cannot be realistic per se.
I agree realism do 'acknowledges the completely subjective nature of our experiences', but;

• Atreyu: "there is something real, even if we cannot ever know"

The above premise is not rational. The ultimate is how can anyone claim something is 'real' when they do not know what that thing really is?

The alternative to philosophical realism are the various theories from philosophical anti-realism which provide a better sense and meaning of reality.

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

So if I can contribute in an effective way to understand and thus to resolve the Problem of Islamic related evils, why should I shut up?

I most definitely don't want you to "shut up"

You can act defensively and use rhetoric and lay claim to the ignorance of my and other posts, or you can take onboard the criticism as criticism NOT as attacks (which you seem to be doing well).

I am saddened that your OP's are being "rejected". I guess exploring the reason why they are being rejected is why you are here in the first place. This is no doubt a great way to explore what you referred to as "leftist sympathy".

We just seem to disagree on root causes. Without a doubt religion is harmful. Psychologically if you decide on X being the problem then you'll open yourself to a state of psychological fixatedness, and it is against this I am contributing to defend you against. Basically this means that if you look for X you'll tend to side with evidence that supports your position and ignore what doesn't support it.

I know you understand this, it is just up to you to find a balance in how you explicate your views without looking overly biased. Be more of a scholar in presenting the data. If you have not already I would recommend doing what Kierkegaard did, use two personas to argue for and against Islam as being a large evil threat to humanity.

note: There are weaknesses to what you present. You simply deny the weaknesses and move on. Listen to the critique more and don't get angered by it no matter how it comes at you. Saying things like "Lying is evil" is simply nonsensical. If you disagree and thing "lying" is always an "evil" act then no one here can help you and want you've spend so long working on will be rejected by most because of silly remarks like that (a remark you seemed to present as an absolute truth that everyone would agree with with question. Obviously I don't view "lying" as an "evil".)

-- Updated September 12th, 2017, 1:54 am to add the following --

The thread has gotten off topic, but to get back to the original point, it's clear to me that the OP doesn't get Realism. And that is the source of his confusion.

Realism (philosophy) doesn't mean, at all, that you take your perceptions and cognitions of things at face value. Quite the contrary. Realists merely assert that while our perceptions and cognition of an object is entirely subjective, the reason why they perceive/cognize the object in the first place is because there really is something there. It's just that one's particular experience of the object is completely subjective. But in the real objective world, existing outside the boundaries of the human experience, there is actually something (some thing) there.

Realism is actually quite "realistic". It correctly acknowledges the completely subjective nature of our experiences, but it asserts that there actually is something behind (causing) those experiences, i.e. there is something real, even if we cannot ever know what it is due to the limitations of our psychic apparatus.

I hope that clears this up, lol...

I think the issue is that Spectrum has been cucked to some degree because people find this topic, and how he presents his views, as too dangerous/confusing/misguided/offensive. He has stated that some of his OP's were rejected. I think this could easily be resolved if he and mods spoke about the thread titles and came to an agreement about how to title the topics and deal with each piece he wishes to discuss individually. The topic on "sympathetic left" is one instance where the OP could have been refined to avoid needless tit-for-tat, and a thread on how neuroscience plays its part would be welcome too, because some of the ideas being presented lack references and SEEM to be based on heresay more than actual understanding of neuroscience (This is not to say Spectrum doesn't know anything about this or has not studied it, only that a more specific discussion in this area would be helpful.)

[Spectrum]

Spectrum -

So if I can contribute in an effective way to understand and thus to resolve the Problem of Islamic related evils, why should I shut up?

I most definitely don't want you to "shut up"

You can act defensively and use rhetoric and lay claim to the ignorance of my and other posts, or you can take onboard the criticism as criticism NOT as attacks (which you seem to be doing well).

I am saddened that your OP's are being "rejected". I guess exploring the reason why they are being rejected is why you are here in the first place. This is no doubt a great way to explore what you referred to as "leftist sympathy".

My post like;
1. Do not Bash Muslims
2. Islamophobia is not a phobia [adapted from Razblo's link]
are very relevant topic.

Londoner kept accusing me of hating Muslims per se. If we had discussed 'Do not Bash Muslims' that would have informed him of my position and why there is a moral duty not to bash the believers but rather we should critique ideas, i.e. the ideology.

As for Islamophobia, this is also a popular topic but we had to discuss this topic in between various other threads.

I don't think the above threads are nonsensical thus should be rejected.

We just seem to disagree on root causes. Without a doubt religion is harmful. Psychologically if you decide on X being the problem then you'll open yourself to a state of psychological fixatedness, and it is against this I am contributing to defend you against. Basically this means that if you look for X you'll tend to side with evidence that supports your position and ignore what doesn't support it.

It is only natural that one look for evidence and facts to support the thesis till it is proven worthless. I am well aware of confirmation bias and I take a significant effort to maintain intellectual integrity.
I have done very extensive research to support my views and I do not hold on to my views blindly.

I know you understand this, it is just up to you to find a balance in how you explicate your views without looking overly biased. Be more of a scholar in presenting the data. If you have not already I would recommend doing what Kierkegaard did, use two personas to argue for and against Islam as being a large evil threat to humanity.

Note my signature and the empathy for the religious. I believe humanity must wean off religions in the future but I understand [very well] why religion is a critical necessity for the majority at present so we have to bear with it.

note: There are weaknesses to what you present. You simply deny the weaknesses and move on. Listen to the critique more and don't get angered by it no matter how it comes at you. Saying things like "Lying is evil" is simply nonsensical. If you disagree and thing "lying" is always an "evil" act then no one here can help you and want you've spend so long working on will be rejected by most because of silly remarks like that (a remark you seemed to present as an absolute truth that everyone would agree with with question. Obviously I don't view "lying" as an "evil".)

Be specific with the weakness and I will take note and address them, it they hold water I will accept these weakness and change or revised my views.

It is well known the field of morality that 'lying' is immoral of a certain degree, i.e. not good, therefore evil.
What is wrong with that?
Kant used the concept of lying and one of his moral examples and this is one of the most popular topic discussed on the subject of morality.
Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door...
https://philpapers.org/archive/VARKAL.pdf

Saying things like "Lying is evil" is simply nonsensical.
Obviously I don't view "lying" as an "evil"

Brush up on Kant and Lying as discussed within the Philosophy of Morality, then tell me do you still insist I am taking nonsense.
So don't throw stones at others if you are living in a glass house.

As I had stated, if there are any weakness, then I will accept them.

Note for every critical variable I will always dig deep and wide into them.
I used to mention Kant as a reference and to reinforce my points I spent 3 years full time on Kant's philosophy.
I raised the premise 'Islam is inherently Evil', therefrom I am spending nearly 3 years full time on Islam, learning Arabic, etc.. In addition, I also spent lots of time researching on the variable 'what is evil'. I dare say your views on the concept of evil is outdated. I have defined 'evil' in term of well being, and therefrom I have researched on the concept of 'well-being'.

You may insist my views are nonsensical or whatever, but the fact is my points are at least supported by tons of responsible research not on flimsy speculations and subjective opinions.

Another point is my hypothesis are abducted from real facts and empirical evidence, i.e. real terrible evils, terror and violence by SOME Muslims who are evil prone.
Note the stats in this site https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
and what is reported in the News almost on a daily basis.

At present I am reading the very famous scholar Sayyid Abul A"Ia Mawdudi's Let Us Be Muslims and his views are based on the Quran and Ahadith. I recommend you read this together with the Quran to understand why SOME Muslims who are evil prone are inspired to kill non-Muslims simply because they are disbelievers.

[Burning ghost]

Spectrum -

Brush up on Kant and Lying as discussed within the Philosophy of Morality, then tell me do you still insist I am taking nonsense.
So don't throw stones at others if you are living in a glass house.

You've suffered with this problem already. It is a small thing to overlook, but you sometimes assume we know what context you are speaking in. You did the same with "opinion".

I know the frustration with this because I have had a similar problem in the past talking about Husserl and forgetting that most people probably have a passing interest rather than having read the work I am referring to cover to cover. I know Kant's Critic of Pure Reason, beyond that my knowledge is non-committal.

Lying meant to benefit only oneself would be an "evil" I guess (I still have issues with the use of the term "evil", but I get it over all). This is not the same as saying all lies are evil. Lying can be protective, so although my niggle may be pedantic sometimes such points are worth mentioning or we end up talking cross purposes, as happened with "opinion". I've been where you are in using Kantian terminology before. People get annoyed if you say "read Kant", that is an area you need to address on forums, if not in your thesis where you'll expect the person reading your work to be familiar and willing to judge your words in the context you present them.

Like Kant said, in being attempting to be precise we often fall into difficulty because what comes out the other end is precise to us, but too intricate for the reader to digest or interpret in the manner you'd wish. That is a great lesson from Kant's COPR. It is a feat to read and another to hold together the many threads of understanding he presents (people still argue over today!)

[Spectrum]

Spectrum -

Brush up on Kant and Lying as discussed within the Philosophy of Morality, then tell me do you still insist I am talking nonsense.
So don't throw stones at others if you are living in a glass house.

You've suffered with this problem already. It is a small thing to overlook, but you sometimes assume we know what context you are speaking in. You did the same with "opinion".

Your "Saying things like "Lying is evil" is simply nonsensical" is insulting especially when I have covered the so much grounds on this subject. There is no need to jump to stating is it "nonsensical." You could have asked my basis of why I say what I said.

I know the frustration with this because I have had a similar problem in the past talking about Husserl and forgetting that most people probably have a passing interest rather than having read the work I am referring to cover to cover. I know Kant's Critic of Pure Reason, beyond that my knowledge is non-committal.

Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all times as those interested in philosophy should be familiar [not necessary agree] with his philosophies. Husserl is not as great as Kant.

Lying meant to benefit only oneself would be an "evil" I guess (I still have issues with the use of the term "evil", but I get it over all). This is not the same as saying all lies are evil. Lying can be protective, so although my niggle may be pedantic sometimes such points are worth mentioning or we end up talking cross purposes, as happened with "opinion". I've been where you are in using Kantian terminology before. People get annoyed if you say "read Kant", that is an area you need to address on forums, if not in your thesis where you'll expect the person reading your work to be familiar and willing to judge your words in the context you present them.

A lie is a 'lie' whether it is black or white. Since a lie is technically not morally good, then it is 'evil.'
To Kant, 'lying' in terms of Moral is absolutely wrong, and any justification [white lies] for lying can be deliberated within Ethics.

People get annoyed if you say "read Kant", ...

I always insist on that whenever there is any reference to Kant. If they don't read Kant's COPR then each will talk pass each other. Why get annoyed when the request is for efficiency sake is discussing Kant's ideas.
Kant is one of the greatest philosophers of all times. I believe strongly those interested in philosophy MUST be familiar [not necessary agree] with his philosophies.

In this enquiry I have made Completeness my chief aim, and I venture to assert that there is not a single metaphysical problem which has not been solved, or for the solution of which the key at least has not been supplied. -Axii

Note Kant emphasis on 'Completeness' and he was doing that within the COPR.
Husserl [in my view] is not as great as Kant.

Like Kant said, in being attempting to be precise we often fall into difficulty because what comes out the other end is precise to us, but too intricate for the reader to digest or interpret in the manner you'd wish. That is a great lesson from Kant's COPR. It is a feat to read and another to hold together the many threads of understanding he presents (people still argue over today!)

Did Kant said that? Since I am onto "Islam", I admit I don't have 100% of COPR at my finger tips at present.

As far as I am aware at present, Kant stated one should not rely merely on the parts of the COPR to criticize it but one must understand the whole.

A philosophical work cannot be armed at all points, like a Mathematical treatise, and may therefore be open to objection in this or that respect, while yet the Structure of the System, taken in its Unity, is not in the least endangered.
Few have the versatility of mind to familiarise themselves with a new System; and owing to the general distaste for all innovation, still fewer have the inclination to do so.

If we take single passages, torn from their contexts, and compare them with one another, apparent contradictions are not likely to be lacking, especially in a work that is written with any freedom of expression.

In the eyes of those who rely on the judgment of others, such contradictions have the effect of placing the work in an unfavourable light; but they are easily resolved by those who have mastered the idea of the Whole.

If a theory has in-itself stability, the stresses and strains which may at first have seemed very threatening to it serve only, in the course of time, to smooth away its inequalities; and if men of impartiality, insight, and true popularity devote themselves to its exposition, it may also, in a short time, secure for itself the necessary elegance of statement. -

I believe it is not effective to read the COPR from a hard copy book.
To ensure I master the COPR I did the following;

• 1. Download the ebooks into Microsoft words
  2. Re-arrange the para into easily digestable phrases.
  3. Highlight, extract significant points that are easily traceable.
  4. Add a sub-title for each paragraph
  5. Prepare a flowchart for each chapter and significant ideas,
  6. Prepare a flowchart for the whole COPR.

I have 7 English translations [ebook] of the COPR, the main reference is the one from Norman Kemp Smith.