(February 23, 2011 at 5:36 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: First off, were they to not obey the local laws willy-nilly, they would've been deported, jailed or executed. Basic survival dictates that they follow enough laws to get by. Proof lies in the honor killings, riots, etc, that when push comes to shove, they would rather us kowtow to them, than vice a versa.
You can say that about any population. You can say that without laws, everyone would be killing each other. It is still unprovable.
Quote:Still, it is patently obvious that through their actions in the majority of the Umma that left to their own devices, they'd rather force their beliefs and laws onto non-Muslims. See: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia et al. Without a dictator, the default behavior seems to be theocracy. Hopefully Egypt will change this dynamic, but I will not be holding my breath.
This is the case for basically any population. Before the 18th century there was either a dictatorship or a theocracy, or both, in every single country. It is not the Muslims that have theocracy and dictatorships as their default behavior, it's Humans.
(February 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: Pathetic. I grab data to advance my point and the best you can do is shriek "America is not the whole world"? All you are doing is "Nu-uh!"
The US is the easy case - how well do you think homosexuality is accepted in Mexico? Coptic Christians weren't standing around in circles protecting Muslims in Tahrir square from Muslims - they were protecting them from Coptic Christian attacks. This is the United States, with a rather solid population and civil code of conduct. If it is this wonky in America, what makes you think that other places aren't decidedly intolerant. In general, they are more intolerant.
Put some evidence up. Or is your point so weak that you cannot even muster a single datum?
Also, you're pulling an Existentialist with redefining terms and moving goalposts. I will not recognize or address said goalpost moving, which is in the form of splitting hairs between a populations desire and, guess what, desire.
Pro-tip: To argue for something, usually one must have some form of desire linked to it, from attorneys holding the desire to win for their client to a population favoring religious theocracy; we see that usually when a large enough group desires something, they will fight to get it. Arguments included.
In the modern democraties, America is way more religious than the rest of the developed countries. So taking it as the basic standard is flawed. Europe or South-East Asia have much fewer religious fanatics.
As for the "argue" vs "desire": Just because someone has an opinion does not, in any way, mean that they will try to enforce this on others. I think people should not be religious. This does not mean i will try to outlaw religion. There is a big difference there. I don't ask for my opinions to be made Law.
(February 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: Never did I state that they are all crazy fanatics - I made statements regarding the hypocrisy of the average condemning the fanatics while indulging in somewhat milder, but still damaging behavior.
To confront your statement about gays existing today, I will return with this gem from my friend:
In the history of Catholicism in Europe, there are many times when they slaughtered protestants, pagans, Jews indiscriminately. Anyone hear of the Spanish Inquisition? (all in the name of testing faith!) The reason Christians don't indiscriminately slaughter today is because laws were passed afterwards after enough times with severe enough punishments that only a few are now daring enough to break the law.
First, please don't use the Spanish Inquisition, because it only makes theists laugh. It actually killed a very small amount of people. Same for all persecutions that were pretty rare until the Church panicked about losing its influence during the Reformation.
And if you think theists only stop killing people because of these laws, realize that those who made and voted these laws...were statistically mostly religious themselves.
(February 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: Creationism is a facet of fundamentalism. Also, in the evidence I presented, I pointed out that quite a large body of people desire theocratic, anti-democratic solutions. That is, at the moment, a pretty damn big signifier of extremism. Also, with violence against gays and women in Christianity and Islam alike happening from Britain to sunny old Arizona, it is not fair to say there is no extremism.
I never said there was no extremism. I said the extremism is a small fringe, not a good representation of the majority. For Creationists, yes it is crazy, but it is not dangerous.
(February 23, 2011 at 4:40 pm)Rwandrall Wrote: What?
FYI - sometimes diplomacy involves insulting. That's a given.
What you're referring to is flower power hippie dialog.
Such a shame it doesn't work. Like a single tool doesn't always work.
There is a strong power of acerbic comments to slice through the crap, often times when we don't have infinite time.
Antigonizing someone makes any kind of dialogue MUCH harder. It can work, but i think diplomacy is the way to go. And re-read the first post i made, and what i quoted. Do you think THAT is a good way to convince theists that their positions are flawed ? And even if you think it is, do you really think this was the intention of that poster ? I'm pretty sure it was not.
If you look at debates, any debates, people are not insulting each other. I'm pretty sure there is good reason for that...We laugh at Bill O'Reilly for shouting at people on air and being rude, but when it's us doing it then it's fine ?
