What is worse, racism or rape?

[laughing dog]

Yes, upbringing and culture shapes people's views and that manifests in the religions they choose to follow or the sect within religions that they choose to identify as. One Muslim will view Islam a little differently than another and one Christian will view Christianity so different from another that he will call the other a non-christian.

But, religion does shape behaviour, from diet rules to dress rules to bigotry. People don't become Jews because they want to chop penises or become muslims because they hate the taste of bacon. They get this from religion, and a lot of religion also makes them more bigoted and misogynist than they may otherwise be.

If religion shapes behavior, why don't all believers in a religion adapt and obey all the rules? Hmmm.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, upbringing and culture shapes people's views and that manifests in the religions they choose to follow or the sect within religions that they choose to identify as. One Muslim will view Islam a little differently than another and one Christian will view Christianity so different from another that he will call the other a non-christian.

But, religion does shape behaviour, from diet rules to dress rules to bigotry. People don't become Jews because they want to chop penises or become muslims because they hate the taste of bacon. They get this from religion, and a lot of religion also makes them more bigoted and misogynist than they may otherwise be.

If religion shapes behavior, why don't all believers in a religion adapt and obey all the rules? Hmmm.

I think religion shapes behaviour, but it's way more subtle than that. Religion makes people take up a perspective. For example, if you are Christian your primary driver in shaping your world view is how it makes you feel. So feeling is paramount, belief follows. That's why Christians are more superficial than atheists/seculars. Christians will often be better dressed, because they care more about superficial things. They feel less of a need to explain themselves so therefore they don't think things through. Christians often think that "it's my faith" is a good answer to why. For a secularist, that's just admitting defeat. But from the Christian perspective if it feels right, then it is right. And this then carries over into every aspect of their lives.

Only secularists/skeptics give a shit about the rules in holy texts. They think it's a problem. Because they have a world view where their feelings aren't paramount. I'm not going to say that they're more rational. Because I don't think it's necessarily true. But they think that right and wrong has to be based on something other than what feels right. So they get rule based ethical systems and whatnot.

I think there's similar effects in any large ideological of philosophical movement. The way we think will influence what we think and our actions. But the content of their holy books I think is largely irrelevant.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes, upbringing and culture shapes people's views and that manifests in the religions they choose to follow or the sect within religions that they choose to identify as. One Muslim will view Islam a little differently than another and one Christian will view Christianity so different from another that he will call the other a non-christian.

But, religion does shape behaviour, from diet rules to dress rules to bigotry. People don't become Jews because they want to chop penises or become muslims because they hate the taste of bacon. They get this from religion, and a lot of religion also makes them more bigoted and misogynist than they may otherwise be.

If religion shapes behavior, why don't all believers in a religion adapt and obey all the rules? Hmmm.

That is a beautiful example of A fallacy of illicit transference - in this case, a fallacy of composition.

 

[laughing dog]

If religion shapes behavior, why don't all believers in a religion adapt and obey all the rules? Hmmm.

That is a beautiful example of A fallacy of illicit transference - in this case, a fallacy of composition.

As usual, you miss the point. If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is a beautiful example of A fallacy of illicit transference - in this case, a fallacy of composition.

As usual, you miss the point. If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

And, as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So let me get this straight...

• A bunch of guys gave drugs and drinks to women, some of whom they knew since childhood or were related, but these women are all White while the perpetrators are all Muslims. Therefore the Muslims [some of whom are from Turkey] are being racist against White women they are sometimes related to.
• Evidence of the racism documented in the op comes in the form of a twitter account that has been deleted.
• Islam is actually against pre-marital sex and adultery. Therefore, this sexual exploitation is because of Islam.
• These women (and girls) were exploited because of non-consent that sometimes included young girls walking around and doing sex stuff "out of loyalty," but the usual rapologists in the forum are calling it rape this time because it's darker skinned perpetrators. They're not engaging in their regular apologetics.

...and anyone saying "hold on a second here that doesn't make any sense," are the ones being accused of lack of logic.

It certainly does seem that many of the perpetrators could be Muslims and it certainly appears there was quite a bit of sexual assault and rape.

However, how this is being used for political ends and framing is what has some problems here.

 

[J842P]

That is a beautiful example of A fallacy of illicit transference - in this case, a fallacy of composition.

As usual, you miss the point. If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

No, again, fundamentally your fallacy here is that you are only willing to allow simple, tree-like models of causation, but ignore the possibility that the causal mechanisms behind human behavior could be a cyclic graph instead, and assert that "religion simply accentuates pre-existing tendencies," which is amazing to me in that it either implies that religion is a special form of belief that does not shape behavior for some reason or that humans are only driven by their "pre-existing tendencies", which do not include beliefs at all!

 

[J842P]

[*]Islam is actually against pre-marital sex and adultery. Therefore, this sexual exploitation is because of Islam.

Islamic men were entitled by Islamic law to have sex with there slaves.

Generally, the prohibition against pre-marital sex is much stronger for women than for men. Men are allowed to have sex outside of marriage, with their slaves for example. And their sex slaves don't count as wives, so they can have as many as they want, but are limited to four wives.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, you miss the point. If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

No, again, fundamentally your fallacy here is that you are only willing to allow simple, tree-like models of causation, but ignore the possibility that the causal mechanisms behind human behavior could be a cyclic graph instead, and assert that "religion simply accentuates pre-existing tendencies," which is amazing to me in that it either implies that religion is a special form of belief that does not shape behavior for some reason or that humans are only driven by their "pre-existing tendencies", which do not include beliefs at all!

Clearly, if you had been following this line of the discussion, you would have seen that I wrote "If it were not "religion" that evolved to promote bigotry, it would have been something else."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

[*]Islam is actually against pre-marital sex and adultery. Therefore, this sexual exploitation is because of Islam.

Islamic men were entitled by Islamic law to have sex with there slaves.

Generally, the prohibition against pre-marital sex is much stronger for women than for men. Men are allowed to have sex outside of marriage, with their slaves for example. And their sex slaves don't count as wives, so they can have as many as they want, but are limited to four wives.

I already quoted from the Quran this thread. Maybe you didn't see that or feel a need to respond, not sure which, but it goes more to the point that one can find what one wants in religious texts. Ultimately, this is why religion is neutral. That doesn't mean it's good, it means neutral.

- - - Updated - - -

[*]Islam is actually against pre-marital sex and adultery. Therefore, this sexual exploitation is because of Islam.

Islamic men were entitled by Islamic law to have sex with there slaves.

Generally, the prohibition against pre-marital sex is much stronger for women than for men. Men are allowed to have sex outside of marriage, with their slaves for example. And their sex slaves don't count as wives, so they can have as many as they want, but are limited to four wives.

I already quoted from the Quran this thread. Maybe you didn't see that or feel a need to respond, not sure which, but it goes more to the point that one can find what one wants in religious texts. Ultimately, this is why religion is neutral. That doesn't mean it's good, it means neutral.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As usual, you miss the point. If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

And, as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic.

I ignored that response from him, figuring he was trolling, as the fallacy was rather blatantly obvious. I'm still not convinced it wasn't a troll post. Nobody can be that dense.

 

[laughing dog]

And, as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic.

I ignored that response from him, figuring he was trolling, as the fallacy was rather blatantly obvious. I'm still not convinced it wasn't a troll post. Nobody can be that dense.

Your modesty is unbecoming. There was no fallacy if you bothered to
1) actually read within context, and 2) think.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And, as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic.

I ignored that response from him, figuring he was trolling, as the fallacy was rather blatantly obvious. I'm still not convinced it wasn't a troll post. Nobody can be that dense.

It was already explained why the alleged fallacy was out of context interpretation of what he wrote. The counter from SB had no evidence to verify as some alleged additional point. Now you are going back to the misinterpretation while apparently brinking. Perhaps you could respond to the most recent post with actual content.

 

[bilby]

There's no element E on the periodic table. It's ironic that your explanation makes it less understandable.

That was my first thought.

- - - Updated - - -

Iron E --- Irony

Surely that should be Fe Y?

I am not sure that Iron Yttrium alloy is used for much, but add some oxygen and you get yttrium ferrite garnet, which is used in microwave filters and Magneto optical imaging applications.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So let me get this straight...

• A bunch of guys gave drugs and drinks to women, some of whom they knew since childhood or were related, but these women are all White while the perpetrators are all Muslims. Therefore the Muslims [some of whom are from Turkey] are being racist against White women they are sometimes related to.
• Evidence of the racism documented in the op comes in the form of a twitter account that has been deleted.
• Islam is actually against pre-marital sex and adultery. Therefore, this sexual exploitation is because of Islam.
• These women (and girls) were exploited because of non-consent that sometimes included young girls walking around and doing sex stuff "out of loyalty," but the usual rapologists in the forum are calling it rape this time because it's darker skinned perpetrators. They're not engaging in their regular apologetics.

...and anyone saying "hold on a second here that doesn't make any sense," are the ones being accused of lack of logic.

It certainly does seem that many of the perpetrators could be Muslims and it certainly appears there was quite a bit of sexual assault and rape.

However, how this is being used for political ends and framing is what has some problems here.

It's called grooming. Teenagers (girls and boys) have a lot of hormones that get them into trouble. Groomers typically shower the victim with attention. Buy nice things. And are generally decent to them. If these girls come from families where they aren't getting attention, or feel they aren't seen or respected, they're targets for emotional manipulation. Which is quite common among teenage girls, because they can be fucking annoying. Girls (and boys) this age don't really know themselves and are still trying to figure out what they like and want. If they're emotionally dependent on another person they might trust that these guys are doing what is right for them. Teenage girls can gravitate towards abusers for years. A lot of these girls develop self destructive behaviours, where they convince themselves they don't deserve any better. Self hatred is a lot more common than what one might think.

Groomed girls (and boys) can give consent for months or years, even though they don't want to, thinking that the other person who has been kind to them really likes it and they want to be nice. When it dawns on them (eventually it always does) that they've been manipulated they, rightly, feel raped. People who have no experience with being truly emotionally vulnerable can't really relate. But our minds are not always our friends. They can compel us do things that violate us.

This is a big problem in the gay community when teenage gay boys live in in homophobic households = prime targets for grooming.

Our normative nuclear family model for families is not suitable for guiding teenagers through adolescence. Teenagers require adult guidance by people who truly have their best interest at heart and who are not their parents. The modern western culture don't provide this. We've gone out of our way to break up the tribal social pattern (which we have evolved for).

This has been researched and grooming is not more common among Muslims than anywhere else. Groomers are similarly people who are emotionally vulnerable, grew up in emotionally impoverished households and aren't good at emotional connection with others or empathy. Also, a lot more common than what most people think. Groomers have lacked the emotional guidance in life to make them understand that what they're doing is wrong.

These are such basic human emotional mechanisms that I'm convinced that it goes way deeper than just culture or religion. Misogyny, while it doesn't help, I don't think is the driving force behind this. It's emotional immaturity.

 

[Toni]

As usual, you miss the point. If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

And, as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic.

If you can't answer the question, then just say so. No need to go all high school debate club.

 

[Toni]

And we all know what a swell guy Lenin was. [Fe E]Truly he had humanity's best interests at heart! [/Fe E]

What's "Fe E"? Presumably the typical Polynesian octopus isn't a Leninist - at least not as far as I know. That's the only meaning of Fe'e I am aware of...

I had thought of using Yttrium but was going for what I thought was uber-obvious.
(Uber as in: uber- denoting an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person or thing.
"an uberbabe") not uber as in the service which is throwing a lot of well qualified taxi drivers out of work

E = energy in Einstien's rather famous equation. So I was going for energetically (that is: especially) ironic. See! Another E word. Also E is easy to pronounce.

I was trying to be poetic rather than obscure.

 

[skepticalbip]

And, as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic.

If you can't answer the question, then just say so. No need to go all high school debate club.

How the fuck should someone "answer" a personal attack followed by an illogical nonsense statement?

 

[laughing dog]

If you can't answer the question, then just say so. No need to go all high school debate club.

How the fuck should someone "answer" a personal attack followed by an illogical nonsense statement?

To quote you, , as usual, your argument demonstrates ignorance of basic logic. There was no personal attack. And the post did not demonstrate an ignorance of basic logic.

 

[Toni]

If you can't answer the question, then just say so. No need to go all high school debate club.

How the fuck should someone "answer" a personal attack followed by an illogical nonsense statement?

How is:

If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

either a personal attack or illogical nonsense?

Personally, I would not limit my criticism to Muslims or Christians but frankly, to include: people. People tend to follow some rules and ignore others. Often to better shore up support for whatever points of view/biases/beliefs they hold. And to attack those whose viewpoints are different.

- - - Updated - - -

If you can't answer the question, then just say so. No need to go all high school debate club.

How the fuck should someone "answer" a personal attack followed by an illogical nonsense statement?

How is:

If Muslims or Christians only adapt some of the rules and ignore other rules, that indicates that religion is simply accentuating pre-existing tendencies.

either a personal attack or illogical nonsense?

Personally, I would not limit my criticism to Muslims or Christians but frankly, to include: people. People tend to follow some rules and ignore others. Often to better shore up support for whatever points of view/biases/beliefs they hold. And to attack those whose viewpoints are different.