Togo1 wrote:Spectrum wrote:
Are you implying we should not ban nor censor movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes that has evil and violent materials?
Yes, broadly speaking. We still need restrictions to keep people informed as to the nature of the material before it is viewed, but I don't see that a ban is appropriate. If nothing else, similarly violent material appears in news reports and in the Bible, and I'm hoping you're not proposing that any of those be banned? Why then pick on computer games? There's nothing in this research to suggest that they are more influential than any other form of exposure.
Re computer games, this was merely an example that I introduced to justify there is a link between evil/violent material and acts of violence/evil.
My main point is there is a link between evil/violent materials
and violence & other acts of evil by evil prone people regardless of where they are exposed to people.
We have to take preventive actions to do whatever is necessary to eliminate its influence, i.e. ban, censor, and other types of control depending on the context and criticalness.
Whether it is in the Bible or wherever we have to do something about it. Note this OP is about Islam and in this case we are referring to evil and violent elements in the Quran and the Ahadith. Therefore we have to do something about these evil elements in the Quran and Ahadith. There are many ways to deal with them but I am not discussing how to deal with these evil element in this post.
Spectrum wrote:
For such cases there are two critical causes, i.e. the predisposition to violence and the triggers as from medias, computer games, etc.
So you're saying that the important point in that case is nothing to do with the fact that he was spending 14 hours a day in a small room by himself with little or no social contact? It was because he was spending that time using a computer that is the critical point?
I guess I'm struggling to link a game played by tens or hundreds of millions of people worldwide, to a particular incident in the US. Surely if these games were useful or effective triggers we'd be seeing thousands of these cases?
Again this is one quick example from google. I have read of many articles where the link between violence in computer games and acts of violence. Computer games is not the main issue here but note this model;
Predisposition to evil/violence + exposure to sources of evil/violence = evil/violence acts
A guy can spend >24 hours on computer with violent material, but if he does not have a predisposition for evil/violence, generally s/he will not commit violence.
Billions of people are exposed to sources of evil/violence materials but not all will commit violence/evils. This is because the majority lack the active predisposition to evil/violence as in the above equation.
Note the above equation is applicable to all people and all sorts of evil/violence.
However for
this topic we are only interested in those related to Islam [OP].
I define
Evil [inclusive of violence] as generally, any human acts or intention that is net-negative to the well being of the individual[s] and therefrom the collective. There is continuum range of evil from low [petty crimes, lying, the likes.] to high [mass rapes, genocides, the likes].
There is a percentile of humans who has a predisposition to evil [low to high] and I have estimated this
POTENTIAL pool, conservatively at 20%. [>20% likely to lie, bribe, steal, the likes].
Applying the formula to our case,
20% of Muslims with predisposition to evil/violence
+ evil/violent materials in Quran
= Islamic based evil and violence.
The above is proven by the glaring evidence of Islamic-based evils and violence that is ongoing almost on a daily basis.
Spectrum wrote:I don't think "inaccurate newspapers, or poorly argued internet articles" are the main points in this case.
According to the research you're citing, news sites and information should be equally influential, if not more so, irrespective of whether it's accurate or not. .
I agree. We have to do something about them. Note this discussion is applicable to contents of evil/violence related to Islam only.
Spectrum wrote:It is not only violent elements that trigger violence in some Muslims. Even the drawings of cartoons of Muhammad would trigger Muslims to fight and kill.
So why don't they? We had cartoons of Muhammad viewed by hundreds of millions of people. Why wasn't there a huge wave of 'triggered' violence?
Surely you have not forgotten there was a huge wave of 'triggered' violence around the World re the Danish Cartoons incident. Then we have the Charlie Hebdo cases. And now every publisher is fearful of publishing cartoons of Muhammad.
Those who continue to draw cartoons are subject to threat and the potential of being killed as per the equation above. If you don't believe me, try drawing a cartoon of Muhammad in a square in Mecca.
The point is, the equation i.e.,
Predisposition to evil/violence + exposure to sources of evil/violence = evil/violence acts
is so volatile and sensitive that even cartoon can trigger SOME Muslims to fight and kill, tells us that Islam really contains very malignant sources that breed evil/violence.
Surely as concern and responsible citizens of humanity, we have to do something about such terrible evil and violent potential.
I am surprise you are hindering and condemning what I am trying to contribute to this real issue of evils and violence.
Spectrum wrote:The Mein Kempf contained evil elements of hatred for Jews. I don't think Germans would have immediately killed Jews after finishing reading the Mein Kempf then but it is a part of the hate ideology that was subliminally infecting the consciousness of Germans [Nazis] then.
So you're blaming the book for Germans hating Jews, rather than the vast amount of anti-semitisim that existed before it was published?
Note the equation again;
Predisposition to evil/violence + exposure to
sources of evil/violence = evil/violence acts
The book is one of the sources that is topping to the existing anti-semitisim.
Spectrum wrote:Btw, are you familiar with the principles, concepts, mechanisms, and processes that trigger genocides.
The 8 Stages of Genocide
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8 ... ocide.html
Islam [partly] has elements in all the above 8 stages of genocides as proven in the Genocides of the Armenians, Yazidis, Jews, etc.
Sure, but so do your posts. They're up to stage 3, yes?
Trying to encourage others to accept your
classification of Islam as a religion of hatred, holding up the Quran as
symbolising this difference, and now we're onto the stage where you use psychology to try and cast their actions as somehow automatic or triggered, rather than people just being rational and human. You've already started referring to 'vermin', so I guess the process of
dehumanisation is well underway.
And strangely enough, you find people opposing you.
Again, Chomsky is useful here. He makes the point that you can't really be said to oppose an action something unless you oppose it when it is practiced by yourself and your own side as well as by others. If you really believe that those are the stages preparatory to genocide, then you need to work out how your own self-imposed mission against Islam (can I call it a crusade?) is different from that. And stick to those differences.
So you agree Islam do contain the preliminaries (1-3).
Thus don't you think Islam warrant special attention instead of being so apologetic to it?
If you look at the history of Islam, in part it has displayed all the points [1 - 8] of genocides. I will prove this in my project.
As for me, my project's mission is to expose the evil and violent potential of Islam objectively then propose effective total solutions to resolve it.
This [ISIS as vermins, etc.] is merely a discussion and if I were to present my proposals to the public it will be in a form of a total solution that is fool proof [no room for side effects in terms evil and violence].
I have done very detailed analysis of the 6,236 verses in the Quran.
There are good verses in the Quran but these are directed at Muslims [only] to be good.
There are like ONLY 10+ verses that are directed positively at non-Muslims, 10+!! out of 6,236 verses in the Quran. In context these 10+ good verses are overwhelmed by the tons of other evil laden verses of the same context that are anti-non-Muslims. Allah may have stated a Muslim be kind to his/her non-Muslims parents in one verse but be harsh to non-Muslims even if they are your parents in other verses.
There are 3,400++ verses 55%!! of the 6,236 verses that are negative [of various degrees] to non-Muslims.
Is that a lot, compared with other religions? Again, without some kind of comparison or baseline, these statistics are meaningless. Reading through my company annual report, for example, I find that references to other companies are overwhelmingly negative. Does that make my company evil? [/quote]
Besides statistics there are other factors and context to take into consideration.
In terms of quantum there are more evils and violence materials in the Old Testament in comparison to the Quran. There are some evil and violent materials in the New Testament.
But what counts is the real resultants of evil and violent acts from the followers [SOME] of the respective religion.
Another factor is the
ethos inherent in the various religions.
If you have lots of encounter with various groups of Muslims you will note they have a very angry, aggressive, evil and violent ethos towards non-believers. This is generated from the tons of hatred exhorted by their Allah and this influenced the 20% [not all] of evil prone believers.
The OT is worst than the Quran in terms of evil and violent materials but somehow the real statistics of evils and violence [at present] by Jews are very minimal in contrast to the Tsunami of evil and violence by evil prone Muslims [SOME]. There must be other factors that suppressed this evil and violence from manifesting.
Btw, I am not pro Judaism, Christianity and other religions. Personally I believe ALL religions must be weaned-off gradually and voluntarily in the future. [see my signature below]. But Islam must be given immediate attention due to the critical_ness at present.
Spectrum wrote:Christianity has an unconditional maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" in the ten commandments.
Islam do have such commands but they are always conditional, i.e. "Do Not Kill except ... " as they are followed with conditions which are vague, ambiguous and open ended.
So, given that, why do Christians kill so many more people than Muslims? If writing down 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' had the effect of stopping people from killing, we should be able to see it in our results, yes? So why don't we?
In the
past Christians killed many but not as many as Muslims. [subject to debate]
The difference is Christians in the past killed when driven by their primal nature and not by the teachings of Jesus per se. According to the Bible they have sinned and would have been punished by God after judgment.
Note we should be more concern with the present and future than the past.
At
present, Muslims [SOME] are killing much more non-Muslims and even other Muslims [hypocrites] than Christians and other religionists, but what is so frightening is they are driven to kill in the belief it is their duty [per Quran] to please Allah so that they can have eternal life. This sort of leverage on Allah to fight and kill is VERY dangerous.
If one sign a contract the obligation of each party is confined within the terms of the contract and cannot be anywhere else, e.g. appendix, explanatory notes, commentaries, etc.
Not true. I've got a large texbook of contract law on my bookshelf that disagrees with you on this point. This is why we get topics like 'Proportionality', 'the postal rule', and so on, not to mention a large body of case law. In general it's not a good idea to try and apply US legal principles to a document written hundreds of years ago in a different country, continent, culture and legal tradition.
Disagree on what?
You meant to say, if one sign a contract, one need not have to follow the terms of the contract without having to pay penalties for non-compliances of the agreed terms?
Quote me one reference to support your point?
In the Muslim's spiritual contract with Allah, a Muslim is expected to comply with
all the terms of the contract as stipulated in the Quran to the best of their abilities. Any exceptions is up to Allah to judge, reward in paradise and punish in Hell.
If Allah command them to fight and kill and if they have the ability to do but did not, then they will be punished accordingly. This sort of threat of punishment and promise of rewards for fighting non-Muslims is what motivate the current crop of evil prone Muslims to fight and kill non-Muslims.
Yes, it looks like you don't understand Islam, at least as it is practiced by the majority of it's adherents. You can disagree with them as much as you like about how Islam ought to work, but for the purposes of this discussion it's what they actually believe that's relevent, no matter how much that conflicts with your own analysis.
Note majority beliefs do not mean right.
Point is you don't have a good grasp of the Quran and such your view on Islam cannot be credible.
My basis is objective and based on technicalities from the Quran.
This can only be establish from a thread "Why Sunni and Shia are not Islam-proper based on words of Allah from the Quran."
This debate is carried out extensively in the internet and we can do so if you are not convinced.
[/quote]
The
regressive left is a term coined by anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz[2] to describe a perceived segment of the left which ignores certain reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance. Nawaz originally used it to refer to misguided leftist tolerance of conservative and fundamentalist Islam (underbelly and all) in contrast to their progressive stance against the scourge of conservative and fundamentalist Christianity, but the term has since been extended to encompass many (but curiously not all) leftist positions that appear contradictory to progressive values.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left
[/quote]
Yes, that's the group we're talking about. Do they actually exist, and if so, are they actually particularly sympathetic to Islam? You've already said you're on a special mission to try and uncover the evil of Islam specifically. Given that you're only attacking Islam, how do you know they're actually sympathetic to Islam, rather than just protective of religious freedom and majority rights?[/quote]
Yes they do exist.
There are many on the Left in general who condemned the negative trend of some of their fellow Leftists.
People like Maajid Nawaz, Bill Maher, Sam Harris and Rubin of Rubin Report,etc., lean to the Left generally and striving to be progressive but they felt some of their fellow Lefties are going to the extreme bothering on generating negatives to humanity. Note ANTIFA.
Note the issue is not religious freedom, the critiques are not shutting down religious freedom but rather they criticizing the evils and violence [the ideology not believers] from some religions. Instead they are called Islamophobes [the fear is real], racists [Islam is not a race] - this is intellectual bankruptcy and moving back to the dark ages.
These Regressive Lefts are protesting with violence to stop freedom of speech leaving no room for debates at all. This is going on regularly.
Are you aware there is a lot of restriction of freedom of speech at present within the academic circle?
There are so many 'stupid' incidents done by these Regressive Left. Note in Canada, they are coming up with Laws to protect especially Islam while they are ignorant of its evil potential. Recently a jihadist terrorist who had killed American soldiers was rewarded with $10++ million .. what kind of f.. is this? If they are not sympathetic, they would make it tough for for that terrorist killer.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.