Making the World Safe for Pederasty

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sati was still considered a highly praiseworthy act. The woman redeemed her ancestors out of hell.

“The ritual of sati was banned by the British Government in 1829 (see a timeline of Sati). However, it took a large scale social reforms by Dayanand Saraswati(of Arya Samaj), Mahatma Gandhi and the like to actually stop the practice.”

Kamat's Potpourri: The Tradition of Sati in India [/quote]

I suppose it was. I can’t deny that, but I can say it isn’t prescribed ANYWHERE in the Vedas, which technically is the final word on Hindu law.

I’m also not sure how it would redeem someone out of hell, seeing as there is NO WAY out of hell. You spend the pre-determined amount of time there, before rejoining the endless cycles of birth and death (unless you become enlightened along the way).

[i]Condemned practices like Sati (widow self-immolation or “bride burning”) and widow remarriage were social practices that arose in India’s Middle Ages, mostly in the northern regions of India, and had little to do with Hindu laws and scriptures. In the later medieval ages, this practice came to be forced on the widows. However this practice was abolished from the society in the 20th century due to the efforts of Lord William Bentinck, the Governor-General of India (1828-1835) and many Hindu reformists, including Raja Ram Mohan Roy.

Sati was not prevalent in ancient history. In the epic Ramayana, King Dasharatha (Rama’s father) left behind three widows after his death who never committed Sati. In the same epic, Vali’s wife, Ravana’s wife, and wives of other fallen warriors did not commit Sati after the death of their husbands. In the Mahabharata, Kunti, the mother of Pandavas, was a widow who never committed Sati. There are no references to Kaurava wives committing Sati after their husbands died in Mahabharata war. Sati was also not practiced by south Indian Hindu communities, and arose after the establishment of Hinduism, around the time of the Gupta Empire, 400 AD.[/i]

82

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:
No they don’t.

You mean not everyone ends up meeting the big guy upstairs?
[/quote]

That is the great unknown. Since it is such an unknown I would like to keep this within the bounds of the here and now.

[quote]
No you accuse PRCaldude of predjudice because he points out aspects of Islam that make you uncomfortable. In reality you are the one who is trying to spread predjudice here by calling PRCaldude a predjudiced redneck.

Within the context of an argument, it’s fine. Slipping in insults with every other post goes a bit far. [/quote]

Could you be a little more precise on that. Do you mean me, you, or PRCaldude?

[quote]
Sure there is a certain disdain for Islam, but there is good reason. Many of our most cherished freedoms have been severely compromised because of Islam and the hatred and bigotry it teaches. People have been murdered because of islam. What do you expect people are going to think?

People have been murdered in the name of nearly all major religions. Freedoms have been compromised because of Christianity too. [/quote]

This is a very common arguement. The flaw in this arguement is it is not a valid point about what is being discussed, instead it is what is known as a rationalisation.

Noun 1. rationalisation - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

  1. rationalisation - the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

So the common arguement that, since members of other religions have done bad things, all bad things done in the name of religion are okay, or one religion should not be singled out for scrutiny is a totally invalid arguement.

Therefore your point is not a rational, reasoned, arguement. Instead it is an irrational, unreasoned, rationalisation that you are using to try and justify behaviour which you know to be wrong.

[quote]
ACTUAL Islam doesn’t preach hatred or bigotry. If you want to bring up that sort of thing, kindly reference a specific segment of Islam. [/quote]

You need to lay off the PC Koolaid.

2 a: existing in act and not merely potentially b: existing in fact or reality c: not false or apparent

The actual Islam arguement is absurd. Just because you imagine islam to be the actualisation of some kind of PC pipedream, the reality is just not so. Here is why I say that.

In several of the worlds major religions there are central figures who exemplify the perfect example of what the religion is about. The Buddhist’s have the Buddha’s as their example of a perfect Buddhist. Christians have Jesus as the perfect example of what it is to be a perfect Christian. Muslim’s have a role model of what it is to be a perfect Muslim in Mohammad.

If Jesus were alive today in the US doing the same things he did two thousand years ago he would have no prblems with law enforcement. Same thing for the Buddha’s.

If Mohammad were alive today doing his thing he would be in violation of a number of laws, ranging from civil rights violations, to hate crimes, to rape, to human trafficing to murder.

Islam teaches that apostates (Atheists and muslims who convert to other religions) should be killed. If teaching that people with non-islamic religious beliefs should be killed is not predjudice then what is it? How, can you say that religion that has such a foundation doesn’t teach predjudice or bigotry?

[quote]
I’ll gladly join a Wahhabi bashing thread! :)[/quote]

All muslims worship mohammad as the perfect man and follow the koran. Blaming the Wahhabi’s for staying true to Islam’s roots might give you a convenient bad guy to rationalise your erroneous view of the religion, but it doesn’t explain why all muslims aren’t guilty of worshipping evil five times a day when they get on their knees to worship mohammad, a man who was guilty of assault, rape, murder, human trafficing.

83

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I would think it is self evident from his posts. He takes the view that Osama’s brand of Islam is the real Islam and that more moderate versions are not supported by the Koran. I don’t know if he is entirely correct but he has many good points.

Don’t the practitioners get to decide what the “real” Islam is? Couldn’t one easily say that all non-Catholics are not “real” Christians? That any and all killers are not “real” Christians? [/quote]

No, it is not followers of a religion who get to decide what is the real religion. It is the founder who decides.

[quote]
And couldn’t one also say that many murderers are “real” Christians? [/quote]

Murder was never acceptable to Jesus and he was unequivocal about it.

[quote]
It does not matter what one random person can extract from a Holy Book and say it supports this and that, the religion is what it’s practitioners practice. And in that way, Islam is just as disgusting AND just as harmless as a whole as Christianity (all kinds), Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism, all Paganism, ect ad infinitum.[/quote]

No. A religions holybook or oral traditions is what defines what it is about. If individual practitioners are practicing something else, they are in effect practicing another religion, even if they are keeping the name the same.

84

[quote]Sifu wrote:
That is the great unknown. Since it is such an unknown I would like to keep this within the bounds of the here and now.[/quote]

I thought Christians who live a good life are rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven?

PRCalDude, but anyone really who chooses to rag on Islam constantly. Spread the hate out people, don’t focus it.

[quote]This is a very common arguement. The flaw in this arguement is it is not a valid point about what is being discussed, instead it is what is known as a rationalisation.

Noun 1. rationalisation - (psychiatry) a defense mechanism by which your true motivation is concealed by explaining your actions and feelings in a way that is not threatening

  1. rationalisation - the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

So the common arguement that, since members of other religions have done bad things, all bad things done in the name of religion are okay, or one religion should not be singled out for scrutiny is a totally invalid arguement.

Therefore your point is not a rational, reasoned, arguement. Instead it is an irrational, unreasoned, rationalisation that you are using to try and justify behaviour which you know to be wrong.[/quote]

I am in no way endorsing the behavior that you find reprehensible, because I too find it to be disgusting.

I’m not going to sit here and claim to be some all-knowing expert on Islam, I know very little about it. All I’m trying to point out is that a lot of posters here seem to take every opportunity to attack the religion. I despise the murdering, child molesting rapists just as much as you, but again - direct your comments at them instead of generalizing about all the follower of the religion.

I don’t make snide comments about Catholic priests every third post, I don’t harp on about the Crusades and forced religious conversions in India and Sri Lanka during British rule. If I felt the need to vocalize my opinion, then I’d MAKE A SINGLE THREAD ABOUT IT. What I find annoying is when there are multiple threads where everyone bashes a specific group.

From the “Why Do People Care About Gay Marriage?” thread:

Or: [quote]Not quite. They are allowed to “drink from the same fountain.” They can marry the woman of their choosing. The just want the definition changed. And soon, so will the Muslims to conform to shari’ah law. And then the gays will have a huge problem on their hands, just like they now do in Europe.[/quote]

85

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I’m not going to sit here and claim to be some all-knowing expert on Islam, I know very little about it. All I’m trying to point out is that a lot of posters here seem to take every opportunity to attack the religion. I despise the murdering, child molesting rapists just as much as you, but again - direct your comments at them instead of generalizing about all the follower of the religion.
[/quote]

Reminds me of posters who take every opportunity to attack our country. Why is this ok and attacking a religion whose followers are committing global acts of terror not?

In other words, why is it wrong for the US spread it’s influence around the world and not wrong for the Muslims to do the very same thing for centuries.

You’re a Hindu, do you have ancestors in India? Does it bother you that the ancient capital of India is in Muslim Pakistan? The same could be said of Serbia and Kosovo, Crete, ect.

86

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Wait what? Icans didn’t do any kind of ‘ritual slaughter’ in honor of the sun god. The sun god required no sacrifices. And all sacrifices, which were pretty rare, were convicted criminals or POWs. How is that an ad hominem? You really DO sound like you got your Incan info from Apocalypto, which has A LOT of misleading information.

The Incan Sun-God has an equal amount of proof of existence as any other God. One doesn’t have to prove a negative, and by making the distinction that such things do not exist, you are admitting they all do not exist unless proven otherwise. Unless, of course, you’re taking it on blind faith that one exists while another does not, in which case, logical argument is useless.[/quote]

Just for the record, I don’t think those were Incans that were depicted in Apocalypto. Incans lived in the Andes mountains in Peru, and had very different architecture than what was depicted in Apocalypto.

I don’t feel like looking anything up at the moment, but I would feel comfortable guessing that those were supposed to be Mayans in the movie. Either that or Mel Gibson really whiffed.

In any event, back to the subject at hand.

87

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

And to call the sun-god nonexistent is to call all gods non-existent. Making sure we’re clear on this.

Since the beginning of your post contained nothing more than an ad-hominem and no actual argument, we’ll just deal with this… It does not follow that calling one god non-existent = calling all gods non-existent. So yes, I am quite clear, you on the other hand have committed a logical fallacy.

That’s not to say that all gods aren’t non-existent though.

Wait what? Icans didn’t do any kind of ‘ritual slaughter’ in honor of the sun god. The sun god required no sacrifices. And all sacrifices, which were pretty rare, were convicted criminals or POWs. How is that an ad hominem? You really DO sound like you got your Incan info from Apocalypto, which has A LOT of misleading information.

The Incan Sun-God has an equal amount of proof of existence as any other God. One doesn’t have to prove a negative, and by making the distinction that such things do not exist, you are admitting they all do not exist unless proven otherwise. Unless, of course, you’re taking it on blind faith that one exists while another does not, in which case, logical argument is useless.[/quote]

OK, now I see your point about the non-existent god thingy, but I don’t know why you are making that point. Also, I was thinking of the Aztecs who sacrificed an estimated 20,000 people a year and on one occasion sacrificed 80,000 in four days. This isn’t from the movies.

The savages weren’t noble.

88

Makavali you edited out half my response where I made points about comments you made and asked you questions. That is real weak of you.

Then you bring in comments from the gay marrige thread. I haven’t bothered to read that thread because I’m not gay. Gay marrige is gay. Therefore people who care about gays getting married are gay.

Are far as some of the comments that are made on this board, some of the guys on here are real cliches. If they feel one way about one issue you can make a laundry list of other opinions they probably have and be right.

I addressed what I think of their motivations vis a vis Islam in my second to last post but you just edited it out. Is this what you do when you encounter something about islam that you find uncomfortable, just ignore it or edit it out of your thoughts?

But I will give it again. What we get from our leaders is the politically correct line that islam is all about peace and niceness. We have people like tony Bliar saying the core vbalues of Islam are all peaceful. In reality the core values of islam are reflected in the life of mohammad.

Mohammad’s life was full of acts of inhumane cruelty. Yet muslims all refer to mohammad as the most merciful, the most compassionate, the perfect man. They are either in denial about the founder of their religion or just plain liers. Either way I don’t think criticising muslims for idolizing and worshipping someone did the kinds of evil shit mohamad did is unfair.

89

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Reminds me of posters who take every opportunity to attack our country. Why is this ok and attacking a religion whose followers are committing global acts of terror not?[/quote]

Neither is OK. Next time I see that sort of thing, I’ll say something, but trading backhanded insults is just weak.

If you’re referring to Lixy, he gets called out on it all the time, why so defensive when I do the same to someone else?

90

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Makavali you edited out half my response where I made points about comments you made and asked you questions. That is real weak of you.[/quote]

I felt lazy.

EDIT: Also, a lot of this is personal. When you attack Islam, you attack a lot of my friends, who don’t resemble the people I’m sure you mean to attack.

Again, it’s a question of the individual sifting through the bullshit.

When I look at the extremists, I feel a great swell of pity mixed with revulsion. They’re so close minded, that they accept blindly whatever they’ve been told by spiritual “leaders”.

91

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
You’re a Hindu, do you have ancestors in India? Does it bother you that the ancient capital of India is in Muslim Pakistan? The same could be said of Serbia and Kosovo, Crete, ect.[/quote]

I couldn’t care less to be honest. I’ve never understood that sentiment, the spirituality of an area could never be undermined by who owns it.

I must admit, that most “conservative” Hindus would consider my style of Hinduism to be “new-age”. Unfortunately for them, they fail to realize that what I follow is Hinduism from BEFORE it was clouded by all manner of social bullshit. It happens in every religion, it’s up to the individual to try and sift through all the crap.

92

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
OK, now I see your point about the non-existent god thingy, but I don’t know why you are making that point. Also, I was thinking of the Aztecs who sacrificed an estimated 20,000 people a year and on one occasion sacrificed 80,000 in four days. This isn’t from the movies.

The savages weren’t noble.[/quote]

Aztecs =/= Icans.

And yes, unslinger, Apocalypto had a Mayan theme. Mayans, as well, never made sacrifices to the Sun god, and only used POWs and criminals in sacrifices.

The Aztecs were a whole different matter…

93

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Reminds me of posters who take every opportunity to attack our country. Why is this ok and attacking a religion whose followers are committing global acts of terror not?

Neither is OK. Next time I see that sort of thing, I’ll say something, but trading backhanded insults is just weak.

If you’re referring to Lixy, he gets called out on it all the time, why so defensive when I do the same to someone else?[/quote]

Lixy and a batch of others.

edit- since when is speaking the truth a backhanded insult? There are people who do what I have said, they admit they do. Why is saying this an insult?

94

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Reminds me of posters who take every opportunity to attack our country. Why is this ok and attacking a religion whose followers are committing global acts of terror not?

Neither is OK. Next time I see that sort of thing, I’ll say something, but trading backhanded insults is just weak.

If you’re referring to Lixy, he gets called out on it all the time, why so defensive when I do the same to someone else?[/quote]

I am not defensive. Just explaining my stance.

95

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
You’re a Hindu, do you have ancestors in India? Does it bother you that the ancient capital of India is in Muslim Pakistan? The same could be said of Serbia and Kosovo, Crete, ect.

I couldn’t care less to be honest. I’ve never understood that sentiment, the spirituality of an area could never be undermined by who owns it.

I must admit, that most “conservative” Hindus would consider my style of Hinduism to be “new-age”. Unfortunately for them, they fail to realize that what I follow is Hinduism from BEFORE it was clouded by all manner of social bullshit. It happens in every religion, it’s up to the individual to try and sift through all the crap.[/quote]

My bad. I researched it. Damn, I was wrong. New Delhi is the old capital of Delhi, so it is indeed in India. What threw me off is it was the seat of Moghul rule for centuries and I thought it was alotted to Pakistan during the split.

Anyhow, if that’s your take on spirituality and geography, what’s your take on the Israeli/Palestinian issue and the problem of who owns Jerusalem?

Just curious.

96

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
beebuddy wrote:
OK, now I see your point about the non-existent god thingy, but I don’t know why you are making that point. Also, I was thinking of the Aztecs who sacrificed an estimated 20,000 people a year and on one occasion sacrificed 80,000 in four days. This isn’t from the movies.

The savages weren’t noble.

Aztecs =/= Icans.

And yes, unslinger, Apocalypto had a Mayan theme. Mayans, as well, never made sacrifices to the Sun god, and only used POWs and criminals in sacrifices.

The Aztecs were a whole different matter…[/quote]

I’ll leave it to you to confirm or deny, but ALL of those mofos did the human sacrifice thing. The Aztecs apparently took the cake.

97

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Anyhow, if that’s your take on spirituality and geography, what’s your take on the Israeli/Palestinian issue and the problem of who owns Jerusalem?[/quote]

Well again, as long as nobody is barred from visiting (even if they have no reason to) then I don’t see the issue with ownership. To make a decision on ownership, I feel that taking religion out of the equation (for the most part) would be best.

98

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Makavali you edited out half my response where I made points about comments you made and asked you questions. That is real weak of you.

I felt lazy.

EDIT: Also, a lot of this is personal. When you attack Islam, you attack a lot of my friends, who don’t resemble the people I’m sure you mean to attack.

Again, it’s a question of the individual sifting through the bullshit.

When I look at the extremists, I feel a great swell of pity mixed with revulsion. They’re so close minded, that they accept blindly whatever they’ve been told by spiritual “leaders”.[/quote]

I’ve had friends who are Muslim also. The ones I have known I have liked. It doesn’t stop me from taking a critical look at Islam.

I also have a lot of friends (and a few enemies) who are Jewish. It doesn’t stop me from taking a critical view of the old testament or even some present day practices of Judaism. ie Circumcision, I do not think hacking a body part off of a defenseless baby is an appropriate way to express your faith in god. It most certainly is not an expression of the babies belief in god as he has no choice in the matter. Besides Moses circumcised himself when he was an old man, so the Jews are not following what is in their bible.

I also have friends and family who are Christians. It doesn’t stop me from being critical of Christians (especially the ones who keep dredging up bullshit from the old testament) even if I can’t find fault with Jesus. Jesus was a Mensch. If we all acted like Jesus there would be no problems.

99

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I’ve had friends who are Muslim also. The ones I have known I have liked. It doesn’t stop me from taking a critical look at Islam.

I also have a lot of friends (and a few enemies) who are Jewish. It doesn’t stop me from taking a critical view of the old testament or even some present day practices of Judaism. ie Circumcision, I do not think hacking a body part off of a defenseless baby is an appropriate way to express your faith in god. It most certainly is not an expression of the babies belief in god as he has no choice in the matter. Besides Moses circumcised himself when he was an old man, so the Jews are not following what is in their bible.

I also have friends and family who are Christians. It doesn’t stop me from being critical of Christians (especially the ones who keep dredging up bullshit from the old testament) even if I can’t find fault with Jesus. Jesus was a Mensch. If we all acted like Jesus there would be no problems. [/quote]

And you’re vocal about that, which I can respect. If you’re going to be critical, be critical of everyone and everything. Obviously YOU can do that.

100

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

If I believed that the standard of morality was what the majority of people said it was, then I couldn’t dispute what people chose as moral.

Because I believe that morality should be based on human nature, I think that homosexuality, pederasty, bestiality, and all such things are immoral. Sex should be the expression of deep love that a man and a woman have for one another.

I hope it was obvious that I do not believe that, though most of our society does, morality should be founded on a social metaphysic.[/quote]

I’m sort of oldfashioned in some things, sex and love should go hand in hand. On the other hand, I know many people that aren’t that picky.

I think you are right, it is society that defines the accepted mores. Morality very often circles around tradition. Arguments usually defend or oppose some traditional way of doing things. And the reasons why somebody is for or against something are often just rationalizations for the feeling. It is here that philosophy becomes handy, it gives a means to look at feelings about tradition in different lights.

If morality is based on human nature, natural law, then I think homosexuality, bestiality and pederasty belong in the same category. If you are strictly utilitarian, then homosexuality and pederasty can be put in different categories. Bestiality, from a pure utilitatrian view, if you own the animal it’s ok then, I guess. From a human rights point of view we get two categories and if we take into consideration animal rights we have three categories. I believe it is from here that proponents of gay marriage can seek their justification. I stand here (EDIT: well, I’m not a proponent, I’m just not against it.)

But, as you pointed out, we aren’t that logical. I would venture to say that reasons come practically always after the feeling. And in a loose sence morality is therefore ultimately based on human nature.