Support NeoGAF

[DragoonKain]

And that in totality is another debate altogether. When it comes to sanitizing communication (words), at what point is it worth looking into and doing it, or whether to tell that niche group to piss off and dont act like whiners trying to get your way.

It's really no different than businesses analyzing feedback.

If the world has 8 billion people (or a company has 1 million customers) and 10% complain for changes, is that a reasonable threshold for action? Or is it 5%? 1%?

If only 48 people in the world are pushing for changes to the term "pregnant women", should the world bend? Or tell them to not waste people's time?

I'd say society can't adequately function when the large majority has to cater to the niche sensitivities of the few. That rabbit hole is never-ending. In a world of billions of people you are always going to find something that bothers somebody.

I think things we decide societally to snip out should be things that objectively cause physical harm and/or chaos to others. Which is why we can't yell fire in a crowded theater. People can storm out and it can cause injury. Why you can't threaten someone's life.

Which is why activists have been very clever in inventing fictional narratives to try and control language. Because they know simply saying "if you say pregnant women, some feelings are going to be hurt" isn't a strong enough condemnation to get anyone to pay attention. If you notice, they say things like "People like JK Rowling literally want us to be exterminated" or "The things JK Rowling says is going to lead to people being killed." Now, of course that isn't true, and has never been true. But they're trying to liken it to yelling fire in a crowded theater. And people have bought in. Because simple-minded people believe that someone's identity, rather than their arguments, makes them right about an issue. The opposite of his discourse is supposed to work.

 

[Amiga]

Many of these extremists grow up and live in the very same communities as those Muslims though. What have most modest Muslims who do live in the same communities done to stop the radicalisation? And not just talking to people, that's not enough.

And if authorities go in and take out some of the worst, how often are they met with hostility from not only the local Muslims, but also the naïve social justice people?

That is a problem with your authorities, and the media that cover for these groups. one radical figure in the UK tweeted an obituary for Zawahiri, he was called out by Arabs and Muslims, but there was no response.
Also, a pro-Mullah group runs a US think tank and have 1st class access to media and politicians. while the anti-mullah Iranians in America are frozen out. the Brotherhood is the main operator of Muslim communities in USA and Europe, while they are banned in most of the Arab world for extremism.

 

[Tams]

That is a problem with your authorities, and the media that cover for these groups. one radical figure in the UK tweeted an obituary for Zawahiri, he was called out by Arabs and Muslims, but there was no response.
Also, a pro-Mullah group runs a US think tank and have 1st class access to media and politicians. while the anti-mullah Iranians in America are frozen out. the Brotherhood is the main operator of Muslim communities in USA and Europe, while they are banned in most of the Arab world for extremism.

So we send in the boys in blue to deal with the cunt. What do you think would happen?

Protests. "It was only a tweet!" "Islamophobes!"

Those such people get called out by Arabs and Muslims who usually live separate from most of their fellow Arabs and Muslims in the country. As for Arab countries... the only one that's not a human rights shithole is Tunisia and even there's going down the drain.

 

[Amiga]

So we send in the boys in blue to deal with the cunt. What do you think would happen?

Protests. "It was only a tweet!" "Islamophobes!"

Those such people get called out by Arabs and Muslims who usually live separate from most of their fellow Arabs and Muslims in the country.

Most of the protestors will most lily be white.
there are plenty of Muslims who want something done about these groups. they left their countries in the 1st place because the extremists ruined them. and now they chase them to their new lives and took over control of many communities.

 

[Tams]

Most of the protestors will most lily be white.
there are plenty of Muslims who want something done about these groups. they left their countries in the 1st place because the extremists ruined them. and now they chase them to their new lives and took over control of many communities.

Oh, so now it's our fault they left their fucked up countries, only to come to ours and... continue with how they lived in their old countries?

Face it, most were economic migrants.

Anyway, this is getting political, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Peggies]

Most of the protestors will most lily be white.
there are plenty of Muslims who want something done about these groups. they left their countries in the 1st place because the extremists ruined them. and now they chase them to their new lives and took over control of many communities.

Plenty of them...of course.

 

[Ashes]

Ah its that time of the thread. Let's shit on religion/islam or both.

The J K Rowling harassment is an odd turn of events. She's been facing death threats for a while now. She's even faced a chilling effect for her views. Wonder if the potter cast will come to her support now, having previously distanced themselves.

Also should we now hate on all lgbt allies for their seeming lack of enlightenment as pertaining free speech? Seems like some people want to attack the masses for what some individuals do.

 

[Tams]

Ah its that time of the thread. Let's shit on religion/islam or both.

The J K Rowling harassment is an odd turn of events. She's been facing death threats for a while now. She's even faced a chilling effect for her views. Wonder if the potter cast will come to her support now, having previously distanced themselves.

Also should we now hate on all lgbt allies for their seeming lack of enlightenment as pertaining free speech? Seems like some people want to attack the masses for what some individuals do.

The problem is people going, "Speaking as XYZ..." and expecting that to hold some weight and be respected, but to then hold their hands up and say, "But I didn't do it. I'm a good XYZ!"

Yeah, we get it. It doesn't change that the same core ideals that you share with the perpetrator/s are often what caused the atrocity. And that you are in a much better position to try and stop it happening again than people who don't believe in whatever it is.

If it's, say, rape in the LGBTQ+alphabetsoup community, what am I, who doesn't give a shit about it supposed to do?! Sort your own shit out, and I'll do my part in the communities I'm part of - it won't include whining about issues there though.

 

[jason10mm]

Also should we now hate on all lgbt allies for their seeming lack of enlightenment as pertaining free speech? Seems like some people want to attack the masses for what some individuals do.

See, I don't think there is ANYONE who would attribute the antics of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church (protesters at military funerals) to Christians at large. I don't think anyone would attribute the actions of President Biden with abortion to represent catholic views in general.

Some groups have CLEARLY isolated extremist violent views to a fringe group that receives no endorsement or support from the rest.

Can't say the same for some other violent extremists springing from other ideologies though. It's usually pretty clear who is expelled from the group and who is still accepted, even if in hushed voices.

 

[Ashes]

See, I don't think there is ANYONE who would attribute the antics of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church (protesters at military funerals) to Christians at large. I don't think anyone would attribute the actions of President Biden with abortion to represent catholic views in general.

Some groups have CLEARLY isolated extremist violent views to a fringe group that receives no endorsement or support from the rest.

Can't say the same for some other violent extremists springing from other ideologies though. It's usually pretty clear who is expelled from the group and who is still accepted, even if in hushed voices.

Seems like a double standard to be honest.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Ah its that time of the thread. Let's shit on religion/islam or both.

The J K Rowling harassment is an odd turn of events. She's been facing death threats for a while now. She's even faced a chilling effect for her views. Wonder if the potter cast will come to her support now, having previously distanced themselves.

Also should we now hate on all lgbt allies for their seeming lack of enlightenment as pertaining free speech? Seems like some people want to attack the masses for what some individuals do.

Seems like a double standard to be honest.

Big difference is that for any groups trying to get their way through social media, politics, religion etc.... there's only one that openly supports going after people or chopping off their heads.

 

[Ashes]

Big difference is that for any groups trying to get their way through social media, politics, religion etc.... there's only one that openly supports going after people or chopping off their heads.

How do you mean openly?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

How do you mean openly?

Satanic Verses controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini
On 14 February 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran and one of the most prominent Shi'a Muslim leaders, issued a fatwa calling for the death of Rushdie and his publishers. This created a major international incident that persisted for many years.

Broadcast on Iranian radio, the judgement read:

We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah willing. Meanwhile, if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions.

— Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini.[36]
Khomeini did not give a legal reasoning for his judgement. It is thought to be based on the ninth chapter of the Qur'an, called At-Tawba, verse 61: "Some of them hurt the prophet by saying, 'He is all ears!' Say, 'It is better for you that he listens to you. He believes in God, and trusts the believers. He is a mercy for those among you who believe.' Those who hurt God's messenger have incurred a painful retribution".[37] However it was not explained how that chapter could support such a judgement.

Over the next few days, Iranian officials offered a bounty of $6 million for killing Rushdie, who was thus forced to live under police protection for the next nine years. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

 

[jason10mm]

Seems like a double standard to be honest.

Not really. Extremist views in Christianity are very limited in scope. The VAST majority are apathetic to most anything, or passive supporters at the very best. Groups like the Amish or Menonites, with very particular codes and behaviors are also VERY limited in their influence.

Compare that to similar beliefs in other ideologies and I think a "radical" thought process is much more widespread.

Of course, it's all about POV. If you think a woman wearing a sports bra and bootie shorts to go grocery shopping is a heretical belief, yeah, I guess 95% of Christians support that.

 

[Ashes]

http://[URL][URL]https://en.wikiped... days,relations over the Rushdie controversy.

[/URL][/URL]

Fatwa by Ayatollah Khomeini
On 14 February 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran and one of the most prominent Shi'a Muslim leaders, issued a fatwa calling for the death of Rushdie and his publishers. This created a major international incident that persisted for many years.

Broadcast on Iranian radio, the judgement read:

We are from Allah and to Allah we shall return. I am informing all brave Muslims of the world that the author of The Satanic Verses, a text written, edited, and published against Islam, the Prophet of Islam, and the Qur'an, along with all the editors and publishers aware of its contents, are condemned to death. I call on all valiant Muslims wherever they may be in the world to kill them without delay, so that no one will dare insult the sacred beliefs of Muslims henceforth. And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr, Allah willing. Meanwhile, if someone has access to the author of the book but is incapable of carrying out the execution, he should inform the people so that [Rushdie] is punished for his actions.

— Rouhollah al-Mousavi al-Khomeini.[36]
Khomeini did not give a legal reasoning for his judgement. It is thought to be based on the ninth chapter of the Qur'an, called At-Tawba, verse 61: "Some of them hurt the prophet by saying, 'He is all ears!' Say, 'It is better for you that he listens to you. He believes in God, and trusts the believers. He is a mercy for those among you who believe.' Those who hurt God's messenger have incurred a painful retribution".[37] However it was not explained how that chapter could support such a judgement.

Over the next few days, Iranian officials offered a bounty of $6 million for killing Rushdie, who was thus forced to live under police protection for the next nine years. On 7 March 1989, the United Kingdom and Iran broke diplomatic relations over the Rushdie controversy.

Iran isn't a religion though - and its Shia country - which is the minority sect of Islam I believe. I can see the direct correlation you're making. But this can also be categorised as a state sanctioned extrajudicial killing. Most western states take part in state sanctioned extrajudicial killings. NATO has been criticised multiple times for it. Should we now call modern western states a disease or what?

 

[CrankyJay™]

Holy shit, can’t imagine living with that fear hanging over you for that long, living in secret locations etc, and something like this finally happens poor bastard.

I mean…if he was that worried about it why not have a security detail for public events like this?

 

[TheDreadBaron]

I mean…if he was that worried about it why not have a security detail for public events like this?

Sounds a lot like victim blaming for some reason? There was some security at the event but it costs money to have armed security follow you around your whole life. At one point the British government was helping him with that, but my understanding is that now he’s on his own. That plus the fact it’s been so long I could understand if there was some laxness in his vigilance, but man what a strange question to ask after someone has been stabbed. Couldn’t have been that worried about that hit put out on him, he didn’t even have a personal security detail! He obviously had a good reason to be in fear for his life, but living in fear sucks ass and lets the crazies win, so he’s just trying to live his life and exercise his right to speak which is what they have tried to take from him through threat of violence. Any other poorly thought out questions?

 

[BadBurger]

Good news: Rushdie is off the ventilator and "on the road to recovery" according to numerous sources.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Iran isn't a religion though - and its Shia country - which is the minority sect of Islam I believe. I can see the direct correlation you're making. But this can also be categorised as a state sanctioned extrajudicial killing. Most western states take part in state sanctioned extrajudicial killings. NATO has been criticised multiple times for it. Should we now call modern western states a disease or what?

What kind of things have Nato leaders done the equivalent of publicly putting a death sentence bounty on an author's head (along with going after the employees making the book) because he wrote a fictitious story with made up characters?

 

[Ashes]

What kind of things have Nato leaders done the equivalent of publicly putting a death sentence bounty on an author's head (along with going after the employees making the book) because he wrote a fictitious story with made up characters?

Bombed television centres? Quite famously in Serbia 1999. And they were pretty up front about it. And called it legitimate targets.

 

[Peggies]

Bombed television centres? Quite famously in Serbia 1999. And they were pretty up front about it. And called it legitimate targets.

1999 eh?

 

[CrankyJay™]

Sounds a lot like victim blaming for some reason? There was some security at the event but it costs money to have armed security follow you around your whole life. At one point the British government was helping him with that, but my understanding is that now he’s on his own. That plus the fact it’s been so long I could understand if there was some laxness in his vigilance, but man what a strange question to ask after someone has been stabbed. Couldn’t have been that worried about that hit put out on him, he didn’t even have a personal security detail! He obviously had a good reason to be in fear for his life, but living in fear sucks ass and lets the crazies win, so he’s just trying to live his life and exercise his right to speak which is what they have tried to take from him through threat of violence. Any other poorly thought out questions?

Sounds like common sense? This victim blaming bullshit has gone too far. Of course it’s not his fault, but if he has had death threats throughout the years it’s not unreasonable to suggest taking some precaution.

 

[jason10mm]

Never realized this guy was married to Padma Lakshmi.

Damn, if he could go back to 1987 and talk to pre-TSV self: "Write the book, live under Fatwa for decades, eventually get stabbed. Buuuuuuut, get married to THIS!"

"WORTH IT!"

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Sounds like common sense? This victim blaming bullshit has gone too far. Of course it’s not his fault, but if he has had death threats throughout the years it’s not unreasonable to suggest taking some precaution.

Ok well I’m glad to hear that wasn’t your intent, but you have to understand that’s really how it comes across. He did take many precautions for years, he has been in fear for his life for many years, and he doesn’t need anyone to question whether he was really afraid based on the security he can afford, cmon dude have some self awareness.

 

[SlimySnake]

And whoever is killed in this cause will be a martyr,

This is the KEY clause that justifies all these suicide attacks and other nonsensical terrorist attacks. You have someone get rid of that and violent muslim extremists have nothing to fall back on.

 

[CrankyJay™]

Ok well I’m glad to hear that wasn’t your intent, but you have to understand that’s really how it comes across. He did take many precautions for years, he has been in fear for his life for many years, and he doesn’t need anyone to question whether he was really afraid based on the security he can afford, cmon dude have some self awareness.

Who cares how it comes across? I certainly don’t. At the end of the date a dude fucking got up on stage and critically stabbed a dude. Remove the fatwa and the general death threats from the situation. You have a public engagement. There should be some general security here.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Okey, but why do people care.. shouldn't the Islamic religion go through enlightenment soon? I don't understand why they wish to stay in the dark ages.

Well 1st of all there's nothing objectively superior about "The Enlightenment" as movement as opposed to any other movement. It's literally just a subjective idea like any other subjective idea. In fact there's numerous issues with it and countless contemporary and modern critiques of it.

2nd, "The Enlightenment" is not a one size fits all universal process that can simply be superimposed on to other ideologies. It was a very specific event/movement that occurred in a very specific region of the world due to very specific circumstances and thoughts present at the time. Virtually none of those circumstances that gave rise to it are present or relevant within Islam/the Islamic word. In fact a number of beliefs within Enlightenment thought came about as a directly result of wanting to oppose the rival, dominate Islamic civilisation at the time. Further still, the Islamic world never had a "dark ages", that was a specific period that occurred in Europe due to causes that were specific to Europe. The Islamic world was absolutely flourishing at the time. Friedrich Nietzsche, rapid atheist and religious and theocratic critique, lavished praise on Islamic civilisation (Islamic Andalusia specifically) and said it was the civilisation he'd most like to live in. The problem is that people think historical events/thoughts only happened in Western world. Nothing was happening anywhere else and if it was it was irrelevant... News flash, a LOT of notable and equally important, if not more important, events happened elsewhere in the world.

3rd, what does Enlightenment have to do with the limits of so called "freedom of speech"? John Locke, literally called "the father of Liberalism" and one of if not THE most influential Enlightenment thinkers advocated for numerous cases of suppression and intolerance of certain beliefs and speech. Probably the most notable example is Atheism, the man literally believed it should not be tolerated at all and atheists put to death. No one believes in absolute freedom of speech, not Islamic beliefs, not Christian, not Enlightenment, not even the modern world. In 2022 in the post-Enlightenment, modern, liberal, forward thinking etc.. Western world denying the holocaust, literally doing nothing more than simply utter mere words, is a criminal offense that gets you imprisoned.

Why is it that pretty much no other religion gets anywhere near as riled up about this stuff? Even Hinduism.

Lmao. Guess you've been missing all the stories about Hindu mobs killing numerous people for slaughtering cows. Hindu's kill people all the time for what they deem as blasphemous acts/speech. Goes to show when people have an agenda they only see/hear what they want to see/hear.

 

[Tams]

Lmao. Guess you've been missing all the stories about Hindu mobs killing numerous people for slaughtering cows. Hindu's kill people all the time for what they deem as blasphemous acts/speech. Goes to show when people have an agenda they only see/hear what they want to see/hear.

As you've taken a snappy, snarky, assumptive tone with me, I'll return the favour.

I said 'even' Hinduism. As in Hinduism is shit and terrible in similar ways. My point was that Islam are even worse.

I'm well aware of the horrendous mobs that happen in India. I will say it more often seems to be due to greed and shitty local customs than religion though.

But look, the Indian subcontinent decided to start persecuting and killing each other (again) over religion when they gained independence. As someone not connected to that mess (especially as a Brit), all I can say is not my fucking problem that they wanted to be horrible and cruel to each other.

So no, there's no me wanting to see Hinduism in a better light and ignoring evidence. I hate it along with all religions.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

As you've taken a snappy, snarky, assumptive tone with me, I'll return the favour.

I said 'even' Hinduism. As in Hinduism is shit and terrible in similar ways. My point was that Islam are even worse.

I'm well aware of the horrendous mobs that happen in India. I will say it more often seems to be due to greed and shitty local customs than religion though.

But look, the Indian subcontinent decided to start persecuting and killing each other (again) over religion when they gained independence. As someone not connected to that mess (especially as a Brit), all I can say is not my fucking problem that they wanted to be horrible and cruel to each other.

So no, there's no me wanting to see Hinduism in a better light and ignoring evidence. I hate it along with all religions.

No, let's look at you post again and break it down step by step since you insist on moving the goalposts after getting called out. What you actually said:

Why is it that pretty much no other religion gets anywhere near as riled up about this stuff? Even Hinduism.

What is the "this stuff" in question? It's blasphemy. That's the topic of discussion in this thread.

You said that "even Hindus" DO NOT "gets anywhere near as riled up" about "this stuff" as Muslims/Islam does. That's objectively false since as I highlighted Hindus routinely engage in mob killings of people that slaughter cows because they deem it as blasphemy. So once again no, Islam is not "even worse" than Hinduism in this regards since Hindus also engage in the same vigilante/extrajudicial killings you seem to be taking issue with here when they perceive an act of blasphemy has taken place.

 

[Tams]

No, let's look at you post again and break it down step by step since you insist on moving the goalposts after getting called out. What you actually said:



What is the "this stuff" in question? It's blasphemy. That's the topic of discussion in this thread.

You said that "even Hindus" DO NOT "gets anywhere near as riled up" about "this stuff" as Muslims/Islam does. That's objectively false since as I highlighted Hindus routinely engage in mob killings of people that slaughter cows because they deem it as blasphemy. So once again no, Islam is not "even worse" than Hinduism in this regards since Hindus also engage in the same vigilante/extrajudicial killings you seem to be taking issue with here when they perceive an act of blasphemy has taken place.

Islam is worse because the violence they commit is more widespread and the attacks more violent.

Somehow you consider flying planes into towers, suicide bombings, etc. equal to lynchings.

And just to be clear (as you clearly need this pointing out to you), lynchings are horrible too. As are what the cartels in Mexico do. As are 'necklacings' that happen in South Africa. As are the gang shootings in the US. Etc., etc., etc.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Islam is worse because the violence they commit is more widespread and the attacks more violent.

Somehow you consider flying planes into towers, suicide bombings, etc. equal to lynchings.

Exactly.

You will also get the counter argument here and there from people saying, Christianity is bad too. Just look at the crusades 1000 years ago.

We’ll no shit. Back then countries would try to sweep the world in global domination. Genghis khan swept across asia and hit Mid East and Eastern Europe too.

But it’s now modern day.

People are suppose to be more chill and not go crashing planes and chopping off peoples heads. Then again, there’s only one religion that’s still does that stuff complete with anarchist clerics on Tv promoting it to the masses.

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Islam is worse because the violence they commit is more widespread and the attacks more violent.

Somehow you consider flying planes into towers, suicide bombings, etc. equal to lynchings.

And just to be clear (as you clearly need this pointing out to you), lynchings are horrible too. As are what the cartels in Mexico do. As are 'necklacings' that happen in South Africa. As are the gang shootings in the US. Etc., etc., etc.

Why are you desperately moving the goalposts this hard after being proven wrong

We weren't discussing 9/11 or suicide bombings. Not even remotely. I made a post highlighting the elements of Rushdie's book that Muslims deem offensive/blasphemous. You then replied that that doesn't warrant trying to kill someone and that other religions, even Hindus, don't get anywhere near as riled up about "this stuff", being blasphemy. That was objectively false. Hindus routinely and regularly kill people for blasphemy. They get "riled" up very, very easily in regards to it.

9/11 wasn't due to blasphemy, how is that relevant here? It's not. You're just aware that you made an overtly false statement, got refuted and in keeping with classic internet etiquette embarrassingly refuse to just hold you hands up and say "yep I got it wrong" and so instead are attempting to pivot to a unrelated topic.

The vast majority of Muslims oppose 9/11 so much they'd don't even believe bin Laden did it and think it was a set-up by America/Israel.

Exactly.

You will also get the counter argument here and there from people saying, Christianity is bad too. Just look at the crusades 1000 years ago.

We’ll no shit. Back then countries would try to sweep the world in global domination. Genghis khan swept across asia and hit Mid East and Eastern Europe too.

But it’s now modern day.

People are suppose to be more chill and not go crashing planes and chopping off peoples heads. Then again, there’s only one religion that’s still does that stuff complete with anarchist clerics on Tv promoting it to the masses.

Yeah so chill that they violate international law and outright lie to illegally invade sovereign countries and DIRECTLY lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians, the maiming of millions more, the displacement of millions more still, trillions of $ worth of economic damage and cause complete and total instability that leads to the rise other violent entities etc...
I'm not sure if you're aware but for the +2000 innocent civilians killed by drones (~500 of which are literal children) and their families they don't suffer any less and aren't worth any less than the +2000 people killed in 9/11. Then again, there's only axis of power that still does that stuff complete with anarchist politicians on TV promoting it to the masses.

It's always astonishing to see how people have been brainwashed into having no issues with white western state sponsored civilian murder on a massive scale yet draw than line when brown foreign private citizens engage in it on a smaller scale.

 

[*Nightwing]

Politics is a far worse for humanity than religion

But, Shouldn’t we add religion to the ban list as well as no politics?

No fruitful discussion ever comes from it… just one idiot talking at another idiot with an opposite opinion both not listening to the other just trying to win the argument for thier side instead of actually trading critical thinking with one another as another thread has devolved into here as evidence

 

[Dr Kaneda]

Politics is a far worse for humanity than religion

But, Shouldn’t we add religion to the ban list as well as no politics?

No fruitful discussion ever comes from it… just one idiot talking at another idiot with an opposite opinion both not listening to the other just trying to win the argument for thier side instead of actually trading critical thinking with one another as another thread has devolved into here as evidence

I'm aware of his/there opinions. One (the primary one that's wholly related to this discussion) is just objectively false, it being that Hindus don't get as riled up about blasphemy as Muslims. That's just outright false and the discussion has devolved into the manner it has because he's simply incapable of putting aside initial ignorance and subsequent bias and just say "yeah I was wrong". It's really not that hard.

The other opinions are irrelevant to the topic at hand and are childishly simplistic characterisations of global events. It's current years and people are still parroting "muzlims/izlam are the worst ebil killers, west is peaceful civilised saviours"? Lmao.

 

[Tams]

I'm aware of his/there opinions. One (the primary one that's wholly related to this discussion) is just objectively false, it being that Hindus don't get as riled up about blasphemy as Muslims. That's just outright false and the discussion has devolved into the manner it has because he's simply incapable of putting aside initial ignorance and subsequent bias and just say "yeah I was wrong". It's really not that hard.

The other opinions are irrelevant to the topic at hand and are childishly simplistic characterisations of global events. It's current years and people are still parroting "muzlims/izlam are the worst ebil killers, west is peaceful civilised saviours"? Lmao.

The data speaks for itself. Your opinion is just an opinion.

And you've just proven *Nightwing 's point as you simply aren't reading what I wrote.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Any news on his health? Is he okay?

 

[Dr Kaneda]

The data speaks for itself. Your opinion is just an opinion.

And you've just proven *Nightwing 's point as you simply aren't reading what I wrote.

You are aware Nightwing called you an idiot that's not listening as well? Imagine trying to ride his dick this hard...cringe inducing.

Let me break this down very slowly and clearly for you. Because I'm actually reading your posts very thoroughly, it's you that seems you have suffered some brain injuries (or maybe you were born this way?) that's resulted in you being unable to recall what you actually posted

This was the initial post I replied to:

In 1988, he wrote a book called satanic verses in which one of the fictional character hallucinates the life of the Muslim Prophet Mohammed. In which, Mohammed initially chooses Hindu dieties instead of the Abrahamic religions (Moses/Jesus) as Islam's background before changing his mind and blaming the error on the devil.

The book is a FICTIONAL novel about two dudes who survive a plane crash and turn into angels and demons. And muslims heard about that one FICTIONAL passage about Mohammed and threw a fit. Thats it. Thats all there is to it. Absolutely insane that people cannot handle something so simple.

I responded to slimysnake because I believed his post wasn't accurate as to why Muslims took offense to the book. So I highlighted the elements that Muslims deemed offensive/blasphemous, that is this post below:

There's more to it than that.

Prostitute are given the names of the Prophet Muhammed's wives.

The Prophet Abraham who is highly revered in Islam, and is presented within an Islamic context in the book not a Judaic-Christian one, is directly insulted.

The angle Gabriel, again framed within the Islamic context and given his Islam name Gibreel, claims that God is "balding man wearing glasses that suffers from dandruff"

The supposed Prophet is Rushdie's book as he is dying he was a vision of a pagan Meccan deity, implying she is either real or that he believes her to be real.

A character named after the Prophet's wife, Aisha, claims she is receiving revelation from Gibreel (once more framed directly within the Islamic context) leads here people to drown in the seas based on this revelation.

There's some other stuff as well but I can't remember it all. Rushdie himself said he was aware prior to release that he'd cause a shitstorm with the book.

So so far during this discussion (and the entire thread as a whole as well) the discussion has been about blasphemy and/or taking offense to certain speech. We all clear so far?

You then replied to my post saying that that speech doesn't warrant killing someone. And that Muslims/Islam gets the most "riled up" about "this stuff". Even more than Hindus you said, not "anywhere near" you even classified it as. Your post below

If any of that gives you cause to try and kill someone, then you are mentally ill and need to be sectioned.

Why is it that pretty much no other religion gets anywhere near as riled up about this stuff? Even Hinduism.

Even without the clear context of the thread and the discussion chain, it's still beyond obvious you're talking about certain speech/blasphemy since you explicitly used the phrase "riled up about".

So that is without question the entire topic and context of this discussion. I objectively refuted this false claim. Hindus kill people for blasphemy. Routinely. This is not an opinion, it's an outright fact.

Rather than simply admit you were wrong you've just consistently tried and failed to divert the discussion and goalpost move it into something else completely that is utterly irrelevant. If you truly wanted a good faith discussion and you were mature enough intellectually then you'd have simply admitted you were mistaken and then outright stated you wanted to move the discussion on to another topic you have issues with.

 

[*Nightwing]