New ISIS Beheadings . . . How long?

[Virge]

Here we go again Festino...

You said, "but you cant justify modern war for something that happened a thousand years ago, "
Nowhere in my word will you be able to prove I have even implied that

You said, "btw it would be nice to remember that muslim countries couldnt evolve into "modern" more secular societies because they were opresed either by otomans, british, ......."
[COLOR="Blue"]They cannot evolve into modern secular societies because in the quran there are 164 commands by Mohammed that EVERY WORD of it and the hadiths (Sharia law) must be unchanged, obeyed and observed and not doing it is punishable by death. THEIR IDEOLOGY CANNOT EVOLVE
[/COLOR]
You said, "Please stop using the 7th century jihad as an argument at least concede that It was the last purely religous war fought by muslims,
Nowhere in anything I've wriiten will you find the words "7th century jihad"
[B]...Last purely religious war fought by muslims??? Now you're proving you know nothing about this. Jihad is holy war.

You wrote, "muslim governors became more interested in gold than piety."
[B]More proof of how little you know about this[/B]

You said, " mean iraq and irán were headed into modernity but then COLD WAR and foreign interest put dictators in place that made good old fashion tribal islam look good."
[COLOR="Blue"]NOW you've climbed a tree just to prove you know nothing about this. Dictator = autocrat, a ruler who has absolute power. Someone who insists on complete obedience from others; an imperious or domineering person. Synonyms: absolute ruler, despot, tyrant, king, sheik, emir, caliph, emperor, president for life, furher, czar, pharaoh, bey.
You accuse the cold war and foreign interests of putting dictators in place in the middle east. Can you name the ONLY TWO men who have NOT been dictators and who was responsible for putting them in power? NO... you cannot. Use google and maybe you will get the answer tomorrow.
[/COLOR]

On your previous comment you wrote,"Post me what options diplomats have tried, all i know is the west invading and violently dominating muslim countries"
THEN on your most recent comment you wrote, "I know history man"
[COLOR="Blue"]If the second statement was true, that you do know history (as much as you are pretending you to know)... you would not have had to ask me to post information about what has been done by diplomats.

You're really not arguing for Islam, are you? Reconsidering a few things you've written it seems you're just arguing to push your leftist political ideology. DOWN WITH AMERICA,,,,,,,, DOWN WITH "CRUEL" GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATIONS,,, (does "cruel" governments include the USSR, Communist China, North Korea who've killed over 100,000,000 of their OWN CITIZENS since the 1940s?)[/COLOR]


And I ignored these words of yours when I first read them, "Face It european countries and the us are more dangerous to humanty than islam and ISIS and irán"
This is proof you know nothing about this subject

[Festino]

You sir, are a very gifted troll had me going there for a moment. Hahaha good one mate

[palbert]

Well, I guess that settles that, Virge. LOL

[East]

Virge isn't a troll but he is very passionate about what he believes and if you engage him you have to be prepared to back up everything you say....

I am lazy and generally pick my battles carefully so I don't usually elaborate or defend ......but if I ever feel strongly enough...and I am in the mood to Google alot...I will...

[Festino]

I refuse to believe he actually believes that, and frankly i dont feel like wasting 1 more minute xD

[Virge]

This is really interesting. I like the way you wrote this just to build up to making one point and actually not realizing you were making one against your own argument. So let's get to it... I'll take it point by point and then make a brief comment.

No region, no religion, nor nationality has any exclusive claim on homophobia. If one were to watch movies and TV in the US, one would surmise that the area between NYC and LA was merely one big blighted wasteland of Fundamentalists and gay-haters. It ain't so, is it?
Very true, but then who's responsible for that? The people who watch TV and movies or the people who produce them? There's another side to this that has to deal with the reality that most people tend to be intellectually lazy. They seek out friends, news sources, television, movies who affirm and align with their own preconceived beliefs. What they end up with is a "homogenized" convention of "yes-men." This is where bigotry is cultivated and nurtured. It's also not wise if you thin about it. These same people usually (and illogically) prefer to take advice on serious matter from the same people they already know will agree with them. I was taught how stupid that is in 7th grade and since that time have NEVER turned for advice to people I already know will agree with me. Because of this I also like to ask people how they can prove a sheet of glass is shatterproof or a rope is strong.>>> YOU TRY TO BREAK THEM. The same principle applies to everyone's preconceived beliefs. You can never tell if they are shatterproof or unbreakable unless you try to break them --- not consult people who will agree with you.

It's always easier to buy into the reduced caricatures of those whom we oppose and denigrate.
I agree and I do my best not to do it. I also try to point it out when others start doing it. Here's the last time I spoke out against in here in GS
https://gayspeak.com/showthread.php?t=34...t=marriage

When keeping up with gay beatings in the US over the last couple of years, they have erupted in NY, and the Northeast, hardly the Bible Belt.
True... Washington DC, New York, Chicago, <(saw one there halloween night) San Francisco, Los Angeles, Miami and Philadelphia have all been in the news in the past months for attacks on gays.

But guess what? With several hundred million Americans, there is room for bigotry to erupt anywhere, and it does.
True. And it pops up in very unexpected places from people you'd not expect it from, doesn't it? (see above link again)

That I am intimately familiar with Christianity and understand its contributions, crimes, and failings, means I'm not quick to allow any belief system to be branded with some singular litmus test, like sexual equality, environmental responsibility, animal rights, or whatever.

I went to private Catholic boys school for 12 years. The last two years we studies religions and their histories. All religions. That's why I'm affiliated with none of them. There's nothing wrong with any of that. I do the same thing. I don't choose friends based on beliefs and people in GS who don't believe as I do can tell you it's the truth. In fact it's boring to have homogenized friends. It's like having your own collection of "yes men" who never disagree with anything you say. I learned early never to seek advice from people who will agree with me. I have more close straight friends than gay ones because I avoid homogenizing and being drawn into any single "clique." Four days a week I have coffee and snacks at a cafe owned by Muslims because I learn from them and they learn from me. In 8 months I'll be marrying a man and we'll not refer to each other as partners or husbands because I have a partner in business and he will be a one partner in a total of six. Neither of us likes "husband" because of the advice of MANY heterosexuals explaining that by calling my him my husband leaves many heterosexuals with the impression I am admitting being his wife... or the one who is submissive in sex.

Islam is more complex. just as most institutions are.
I bolded the line above that seems to be the point you were leading up to with your previous words. Somehow I got an impression all that you wrote above was a soft sell rationalization to get to this. But I already know that Islam is "more complex"... than any religious ideology that exists. Every comment i've made on this thread has been devoted to that point. It's also more complex than than most people in western cultures can readily [B]understand The problem is in the process of understanding most people take.

You mentioned bigotry.

Last night I read what you've written. Before I could reply Gayspeak went offline for server problems. That gave me all day to think about something. I've already done a check on all my 2,161 posts and I cannot find one time I have used the words "bigotry" "bigot" or "bigotted"
as a means of describing others or their actions. There's a good reason for that. Old wise words >mutato nomine de le fabula narratur When you boil it down the use of the words "bigotry" "bigot" or "bigotted" is nothing but a backhanded form of bigotry -- a means of denigrating, marginalizing and even dehumanizing others for their words or actions. Using them says more of the person using them than about the people the words are directed upon.

[COLOR="Blue"]

Here's a few definitions of bigotry.

Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. Some examples include personal beliefs, race, religion, politics, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or other group characteristics.
Bigotry bigoted attitudes; intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
Bigotry Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

There's a simpler and better definition of bigotry that includes both the root problem and solution to it.
Bigotry[/B] A reluctance or incapacity to understand matters that challenge or contradict one's own preconceived beliefs.

That is the root of all bigotry.
A willingness and ability to understand is the solution to it.

[SIZE="5"][COLOR="Blue"]Everyone believes they "understand"
But do they really know how?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

It's not difficult. There's at least 10 times in GS that I've posted the only thing that needs to be known about understanding. Here it is again.

Koan: Cup of Tea.
"Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can you understand anything unless you first empty your cup?"


It didn't take me long to understand why you've put forth the comments you have. I took time to understand. I know what you are doing that prevents you from understanding me but I won't bring that into the thread for everyone to know. Contact me if you want me to point it out to you. Once I do you can may see it's true, if you can empty your cup.[/COLOR]

[Virge]

Festino said...
I [B]refuse to believe he actually believes that, and frankly i dont feel like wasting 1 more minute xD
[/B]
He claimed to be an atheist but he still operates more on beliefs than knowledge, facts and evidence.

This is a good example of what happens with people (too many of them) begin to believe in a political ideology as strong as fundamentalist christians believe in creationism, original sin, the holy trinity. Both will go on an argumentative offensive to defend their beliefs and either church or party doctrine. They're not out to come to a common understanding. They are out to dominate the conversation with their preservation of what they believe.

All you have to do is change a few nouns in the arguments of any fundamentalist street preacher and you have the argument of his opposite -- a militant atheist socialist.

Start watching and you'll really see they both sound alike.

[StingRay]

^^
Im glad to see Im not the only one who gets beat up by Virge.

[Aike]

Because I like to provoke, here's quite a perceptive piece from Jacobin:

Don't Blame Islam.

[lordjames]

I know ISIS and Al-Qaeda are kind of small and sadistic in terms of the amount of Muslims in the world. But if you think about the religion itself, I think Islam is the worship of a jihadist man named Muhammad. That is about all it amounts to lol...

I listened to a audio book of the Qu'ran one morning a month ago, and I got around four chapters through it. It was very out spoken about punishment on infidelity immediately, and some of the things he believed you must do to fight infidelity. It was pretty wacky like most religions, but its the fact that it gets very sadistic is what catches my eyes. Like some have mentioned, its like looking into the diary of a madman. There is a reason Jihad doesn't kill Muslims for being Muslims apart from why they kill infidels the way they do. It is because both are from the same feather of faith, and one of them is just a more serious and conservative group (radicalized islam). Syria and Iraq are just up in flames, war is brutal like that... and you'll have good muslims and bad muslims. But long story short, I don't like the religion one bit.