Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

But moslems aren't dealing with it. They hold up this bloodthirsty butcher as the ultimate man, someone who every moslem man is to follow in his footsteps. It's the reason why in the 21st century we still have child brides and terrorism in many moslem countries.

Oh, stop it. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The way they are dealing with it is to ignore it. Child brides is associated with agrarian economies. It's not an Islamic thing. It's a poor country thing. Case in point, Europe had plenty of child brides just a hundred years ago. BTW, I recall a Jihadwatch article on Palestinian child brides that turned out to be 100% bullshit. They were all bridesmaids posing with their fathers at weddings. They were all guests. This was easy to verify since all the original pictures came from the same photographers blog with the correct explanations. Even in countries where it's relatively common, Yemen, it's only occurs among the poorest. It's not a religious thing. It's a poverty thing.

 

[angelo]

But moslems aren't dealing with it. They hold up this bloodthirsty butcher as the ultimate man, someone who every moslem man is to follow in his footsteps. It's the reason why in the 21st century we still have child brides and terrorism in many moslem countries.

Oh, stop it. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The way they are dealing with it is to ignore it. Child brides is associated with agrarian economies. It's not an Islamic thing. It's a poor country thing. Case in point, Europe had plenty of child brides just a hundred years ago. BTW, I recall a Jihadwatch article on Palestinian child brides that turned out to be 100% bullshit. They were all bridesmaids posing with their fathers at weddings. They were all guests. This was easy to verify since all the original pictures came from the same photographers blog with the correct explanations. Even in countries where it's relatively common, Yemen, it's only occurs among the poorest. It's not a religious thing. It's a poverty thing.

Okay. Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Oh, stop it. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The way they are dealing with it is to ignore it. Child brides is associated with agrarian economies. It's not an Islamic thing. It's a poor country thing. Case in point, Europe had plenty of child brides just a hundred years ago. BTW, I recall a Jihadwatch article on Palestinian child brides that turned out to be 100% bullshit. They were all bridesmaids posing with their fathers at weddings. They were all guests. This was easy to verify since all the original pictures came from the same photographers blog with the correct explanations. Even in countries where it's relatively common, Yemen, it's only occurs among the poorest. It's not a religious thing. It's a poverty thing.

Okay. Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

How many Muslims actually do this?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Oh, stop it. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The way they are dealing with it is to ignore it. Child brides is associated with agrarian economies. It's not an Islamic thing. It's a poor country thing. Case in point, Europe had plenty of child brides just a hundred years ago. BTW, I recall a Jihadwatch article on Palestinian child brides that turned out to be 100% bullshit. They were all bridesmaids posing with their fathers at weddings. They were all guests. This was easy to verify since all the original pictures came from the same photographers blog with the correct explanations. Even in countries where it's relatively common, Yemen, it's only occurs among the poorest. It's not a religious thing. It's a poverty thing.

Okay. Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

How many Muslims actually do this?

 

[angelo]

Do what, acts of terrorism? Or rape innocent, helpless young girls?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oh, stop it. Correlation doesn't imply causation. The way they are dealing with it is to ignore it. Child brides is associated with agrarian economies. It's not an Islamic thing. It's a poor country thing. Case in point, Europe had plenty of child brides just a hundred years ago. BTW, I recall a Jihadwatch article on Palestinian child brides that turned out to be 100% bullshit. They were all bridesmaids posing with their fathers at weddings. They were all guests. This was easy to verify since all the original pictures came from the same photographers blog with the correct explanations. Even in countries where it's relatively common, Yemen, it's only occurs among the poorest. It's not a religious thing. It's a poverty thing.

Okay. Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

It's a civil war thing. Same shit is going on in the Congo. Systematic and endemic. A lot worse. Can't blame that one on Islam. What is remarkable is that most of Nigeria is relatively prosperous and stable. It's just this one corner of the country that is a complete basket case. That's why it makes it into the news.

 

[Bomb#20]

But we do know that Muhammed would have been forced by social convention to put his penis in her no matter if he liked it or not. ... You're outraged because you're applying modern moral values on an ancient person.

Here's the problem...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I can explain. Sometimes religious people want to do things that go right against what their holy text says. When that happens they re-interpret the holy text in whatever way is the most self serving. Sometimes the person doing the re-interpretation needs to have a funny hat. There may be money involved. The word "metaphor" is really useful.

I wonder if there are any Muslims who have decided to disregard and not believe in the Hadiths, if only to avoid confusion.

Yes (though probably not to avoid confusion), but those are a small percentage of Muslims.
Sunni Muslims accepts the hadith.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

That made me laugh, but it's stupid to call Muhammed a paedophile.

Would you say it's okay to call him an evil rapist, because of all of the women he evilly raped?
If it's about the customs of the time, chances are most of his victims (who lived at that time too) weren't very happy with being raped - usually after much of their families had been murdered by Muhammad -, and neither were their husbands when they were being murdered before their wives were raped.

Do you think if the victims of Muhammad (who lived at that time) morally condemned his behavior, their moral assessments were true, or false?

 

[Bomb#20]

I can explain. Sometimes religious people want to do things that go right against what their holy text says. When that happens they re-interpret the holy text in whatever way is the most self serving. Sometimes the person doing the re-interpretation needs to have a funny hat. There may be money involved. The word "metaphor" is really useful.

I wonder if there are any Muslims who have decided to disregard and not believe in the Hadiths, if only to avoid confusion.

Our very own Syed has.

"dont take all hadiths are as true, if a hadith does not makes sense to you throw in the garbage

many hadiths are writen by shia and sunni mullahs / scholars to glorify their own chosen CULT and leadership"

 

[DrZoidberg]

That made me laugh, but it's stupid to call Muhammed a paedophile.

Would you say it's okay to call him an evil rapist, because of all of the women he evilly raped?
If it's about the customs of the time, chances are most of his victims (who lived at that time too) weren't very happy with being raped - usually after much of their families had been murdered by Muhammad -, and neither were their husbands when they were being murdered before their wives were raped.

Do you think if the victims of Muhammad (who lived at that time) morally condemned his behavior, their moral assessments were true, or false?

In pagan antiquity might makes right. If you win a war you get to do whatever with the losers (including "their" women). Their ethics (like Greek philosophy for example) dealt on issues among free and equal citizens. Slaves and losers for war didn't count. So women for rape was morally justified (by their standards).

Christianity and Islam (not ancient Judaism) is the new progressiveness. The fact is that the morals of Christianity and Islam was a improved ethics from what they had before. Whether you want to attribute this to the religions or as a function of technology and socio-economic factors is an open question. But I think you all know by now which one I believe in.

In the pagan world women didn't have any rights. In the Islamic world women had slightly more rights. Progression.

I'm not a moral relativist. So I think Muhammed is guilty as hell. But I have no problems understanding why he did the things he did. He was no more morally corrupt than anybody else of his day. Or to put it another way, good luck finding a person with today's moral standards in his day.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Would you say it's okay to call him an evil rapist, because of all of the women he evilly raped?
If it's about the customs of the time, chances are most of his victims (who lived at that time too) weren't very happy with being raped - usually after much of their families had been murdered by Muhammad -, and neither were their husbands when they were being murdered before their wives were raped.

Do you think if the victims of Muhammad (who lived at that time) morally condemned his behavior, their moral assessments were true, or false?

In pagan antiquity might makes right. If you win a war you get to do whatever with the losers (including "their" women). Their ethics (like Greek philosophy for example) dealt on issues among free and equal citizens. Slaves and losers for war didn't count. So women for rape was morally justified (by their standards).

Christianity and Islam (not ancient Judaism) is the new progressiveness. The fact is that the morals of Christianity and Islam was a improved ethics from what they had before. Whether you want to attribute this to the religions or as a function of technology and socio-economic factors is an open question. But I think you all know by now which one I believe in.

In the pagan world women didn't have any rights. In the Islamic world women had slightly more rights. Progression.

I'm not a moral relativist. So I think Muhammed is guilty as hell. But I have no problems understanding why he did the things he did. He was no more morally corrupt than anybody else of his day. Or to put it another way, good luck finding a person with today's moral standards in his day.

First, having today's moral standards is not required in order not to be a murderer, rapist, etc. Not everyone was a monster. I doubt his victims (the women he raped) were all murderous rapists, for example.
Second, regardless, if you're not a moral relativist and think Muhammad is guilty as hell, you are actually judging Muhammad. I agree of course. But then, you agree it's okay to call him guilty, an immoral rapist, etc.
I'm not sure what your problem with calling him a pedophile is. Is it because you mean "predominantly or exclusively sexually attracted to per-pubescent individuals?", or something like that. If so, he probably wasn't a pedophile in that sense - though he was both a rapist and a child molester -, but then, other people mean something else by "pedophile".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This isn't an argument based on common sense, but an argument based on a serious lack of understanding of the situation. We could have won the war without the bomb but far more would have died on both sides. Dropping the bombs killed fewer Japanese than any other sane option including doing nothing at all.

Furthermore, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. They hadn't been bombed at that point because they were being deliberately held back as possible a-bomb targets, not because they weren't on the target list.

At least around 200,000 people were killed from the two blasts where others dies progressively several years later.

Had we not dropped the bombs and thus the war dragged on millions would have died of starvation.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay. Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

It's a civil war thing. Same shit is going on in the Congo. Systematic and endemic. A lot worse. Can't blame that one on Islam. What is remarkable is that most of Nigeria is relatively prosperous and stable. It's just this one corner of the country that is a complete basket case. That's why it makes it into the news.

Boku Harem is explicitly about Islam. It's not a civil war thing.

 

[Bomb#20]

Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

It's a civil war thing.

Boku Harem is explicitly about Islam. It's not a civil war thing.

Why would anyone think Western Education is Forbidden by Allah is explicitly about Islam? It's obviously a civil war thing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

At least around 200,000 people were killed from the two blasts where others dies progressively several years later.

Had we not dropped the bombs and thus the war dragged on millions would have died of starvation.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay. Boku Harem kidnapping of over 200 young school girls is a culture thing, not an islamic thing! Right, got it.

It's a civil war thing. Same shit is going on in the Congo. Systematic and endemic. A lot worse. Can't blame that one on Islam. What is remarkable is that most of Nigeria is relatively prosperous and stable. It's just this one corner of the country that is a complete basket case. That's why it makes it into the news.

Boku Harem is explicitly about Islam. It's not a civil war thing.

The Japanese had already sought peace discussions (sued for peace)

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm


•In his memoirs Admiral William D. Leahy, the President's Chief of Staff--and the top official who presided over meetings of both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Combined U.S.-U.K. Chiefs of Staff--minced few words:

[T]he use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . .


Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet stated in a public address given at the Washington Monument on October 5, 1945:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace before the atomic age was announced to the world with the destruction of Hiroshima and before the Russian entry into the war. [Nimitz also stated: "The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military standpoint, in the defeat of Japan. . . ."][/I]

https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

author Alperovitz gives us the answer in great detail which can only be summarized here, but he states, "We have noted a series of Japanese peace feelers in Switzerland which OSS Chief William Donovan reported to Truman in May and June [1945]. These suggested, even at this point, that the U.S. demand for unconditional surrender might well be the only serious obstacle to peace. At the center of the explorations, as we also saw, was Allen Dulles, chief of OSS operations in Switzerland (and subsequently Director of the CIA). In his 1966 book The Secret Surrender, Dulles recalled that 'On July 20, 1945, under instructions from Washington, I went to the Potsdam Conference and reported there to Secretary [of War] Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo — they desired to surrender if they could retain the Emperor and their constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people.'

There is a lot to suggest that Japan wanted to end the War but the Atomic bomb seems only to have sought that the surrender be unconditional.

 

[repoman]

This is the kind of Israeli that I can appreciate, Skeptorr the guy made this video:



Also, great comment:

I really wish my country would find some aristotelian mean between suicidal and genocidal fury. Something along the lines of "not completely batshit bonkers".

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is the kind of Israeli that I can appreciate, Skeptorr the guy made this video:



Also, great comment:

I really wish my country would find some aristotelian mean between suicidal and genocidal fury. Something along the lines of "not completely batshit bonkers".

Of course Europe will change. However, Arabic people's are generally tolerant to different appearances since they range from European to African in appearance.
Hopefully if Islam takes over as the main religion it would not change too much in the democratic structures we have today and perhaps build on them.

The problem with high migration (apart from asylum seekers arising out of Western policies and actions) is we are lacking immediate housing and healthcare resources to cope.

 

[repoman]

You're crazier than a shithouse rat.

 

[DrZoidberg]

First, having today's moral standards is not required in order not to be a murderer, rapist, etc. Not everyone was a monster. I doubt his victims (the women he raped) were all murderous rapists, for example.

According to ancient standards the people who weren't rapist weren't because they couldn't. Is a person who can't commit an immoral unwilling of committing such an act? In the ancient world women kept slaves just as cheerfully as men. It was seen as the natural order of things. The strong dominate the weak. We have treatises written on how to punish slaves including how a physically weak woman should be able to cause maximum pain. Also, it was common for slave owning women to have sex with their male slaves. It was so common that it was seen as an endemic social problem. The only problem people had with it was of course pregnancy. No regard for the slave was given. All this makes me believe that ancient women weren't innocent little flowers.

Second, regardless, if you're not a moral relativist and think Muhammad is guilty as hell, you are actually judging Muhammad. I agree of course. But then, you agree it's okay to call him guilty, an immoral rapist, etc.

Yes, I think it's fine to judge him by modern standards. But what for? What is the point of the judgement? Is the point that back in the ancient world social norms were backward and horrendous? Or is it so that we can laugh at Muslims today and call them immoral? The second point is problematic. First off, it's mean. Secondly, we know religious people cherry pick. This means that we know that this isn't evidence for any current immoral Muslim behaviour.

I believe it's possible for good men to do evil things if the social norms are strong enough. What we need to change is the social norms, not point to individuals and laugh. That won't help anything. And we all know that religion evolves over time. Islam today doesn't in the slightest resemble Islam of just a few hundred years ago. Or even a couple of generations. The feminist movement is picking up speed all over the Arab world today. That would have been inconceivable just a couple of decades ago.

I'm not sure what your problem with calling him a pedophile is. Is it because you mean "predominantly or exclusively sexually attracted to per-pubescent individuals?", or something like that.

Yes

If so, he probably wasn't a pedophile in that sense - though he was both a rapist and a child molester -, but then, other people mean something else by "pedophile".

I still think that implies intent to do harm somehow. The fact that children had their own psychological needs and are traumatised by sex at early age was something we figured out first in the 20'th century. He had no way of knowing that what he did was wrong. I'm not letting him off the hook, but there's no way of punishing a man who has been dead for 1400+ years. I don't believe in collective punishment. So what's the point with judging him?

It's still problematic that Muslims hold him up as a paragon of virtue. But that isn't evidence for that Muslims today are immoral. Like I said, religious people cherry pick. I'm sure they're ignoring this quite successfully.

edit: Now I'm veering off topic a bit, but it also has to do with wider issues of changing the world for the better. I don't think religion is going to disappear. If we want the world to be a better place we need to create an environment where religious people are allowed to cherry pick. Not point out the inconsistencies in their holy texts, point and laugh. Because then I think we lose them from the secular cause. I think the best we can do is make religion into a neutered bland happy feelgood club with no dangerous opinions about anything. A bit like what we've done with the Swedish church. It's the dumbest most pathetic type of religion possible. God is fine with anything and will always love them no matter what they do. To get this type of religion we need to allow them to develop it on their own.

 

[Jayjay]

I think the best we can do is make religion into a neutered bland happy feelgood club with no dangerous opinions about anything. A bit like what we've done with the Swedish church. It's the dumbest most pathetic type of religion possible. God is fine with anything and will always love them no matter what they do. To get this type of religion we need to allow them to develop it on their own.

I disagre. The Swedish church isn't what it is because it developed on its own. It's like that because it depends on government interference. The same thing might work with Islam, a bit like what is being done in Austria with it's recent changes to the Islam law.

When religions develop on their own and have to rely on funding from adherents, it leads to fierce competition and that's where crazy evangelical cults come from. It's not a coincidence that 7th day adventists, Jehova's Witnesses and Scientologists come from a country that has a strict separation of church and state.