^^ It’s both.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you feel islam itself is problem as opposed to the people themselves?[/quote]
They are the same thing. Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. Prove to me that one of these religions is the objective truth and I’ll weigh that religion as purely an idea. Otherwise Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. And Christians win out over Muslims, generally speaking.
Here’s why (highly offensive drawing ahead):
That’s sort of a joke. The real reason lies in opinion polling. You can look that stuff up if you’re interested. Bill Maher and Sam Harris have spoken at length and well on it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Thank you for proving my point. Clearly you already KNOW everything I’m about to say.
[/quote]
If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize, but yeah… I know where you’re going with this question, if I don’t. [/quote]
No you don’t have me confused. but in all honestly I didn’t ask the question to go start defending the muslims. the last time we argued about this I did take the Muslim side but I just did that for arguments sake. I don’t sympathize with muslims who have committed crimes in the name of god. I think people can believe whatever they choose to as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.
Just finished catching up with this train wreck of a thread. Amidst all the shit, there are a couple true jewels here. Just wanted to say Varq that I really appreciate hearing your actual story. Obviously I know it’s the short version and public forum and all, but damn. Very appreciated knowing a little bit more about you.
Beans, same thing. I did get something out of your first post indeed. Even more out of the last bit from last page. And I think you’re right; in those moments–some inconsequential and some momentous–where something like that car happens to us it’s very telling what our reactions are. You can fool yourself for a long, long time, and you can fool others much longer, but if you are the sort of person who thinks and introspects and is actually searching about I don’t think you can fool yourself forever: at some point you have a moment like that which shows you. If you never were that self-aware in the first place I suppose you can delude yourself forever…but usually those people can’t have meaningful conversations or deep philosophical thoughts so I find them boring :).
Beans, did you ever decide to become a Shriner?
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
but in all honestly I didn’t ask the question to go start defending the muslims.[/quote]
Fair enough. I assumed. My bad.
Have done that too, lol.
We’re on the same page here.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
So, having come back after a day to 12 more pages than were here yesterday, I’ve tried to catch up. I’m gettting tired of it. Currently at page 22
But I do want to say that Beans you are one of my favorite posters (as Varq–who is another of my favorite people–and others have recognized as well), and that I very much did appreciate reading your story on faith and your perspective. I had an inkling you weren’t an atheist any more, but I couldn’t actually tell for sure :). At any rate, thoughtful and honest and I really like reading that.
Confusion, I’m glad you stopped by, and hope you’ll stay around even with all the BS and mental battles going on here. You seem intelligent and even keeled, which are always welcome. This forum gets combative, and perhaps all the more so because many of the current posters in this particular thread–though not all–have been part of PWI for at least 6 years, therefore having had many many of these same threads and same posts pop up again.
This is not the case with all threads, but some hot button issues that have been done 12 or so times do get that way.
[/quote]
Thank you. This is probably the nicest post I’ve received on this website. Confusion[/quote]
Haha. Well I feel sorry for you then! This website as a whole is very much a “locker room” type deal with the language and posting habits. This Politics subforum is even worse lol. It’s often a trial by fire thing–for better or worse, usually worse–for the newcomers to decide if they want to stick around.
There’s no bullying intended by the long time posters–I think it’s something along the lines of at this point most people have accepted that nobody’s mind is going to change so it becomes about the mental fight. I disagree with that because I’ve seen a bunch of people from beans on to others change their opinions over the years because of some posts here but…I mean this is the internet so it’s not likely :).
Besides which I often get annoyed and fed up and end up unleashing my aggravation via post.
On the other hand, sometimes it’s warranted like our new resident Perlenbacher.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you feel islam itself is problem as opposed to the people themselves?[/quote]
They are the same thing. Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. Prove to me that one of these religions is the objective truth and I’ll weigh that religion as purely an idea. Otherwise Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. And Christians win out over Muslims, generally speaking.
Here’s why (highly offensive drawing ahead):
That’s sort of a joke. The real reason lies in opinion polling. You can look that stuff up if you’re interested. Bill Maher and Sam Harris have spoken at length and well on it.[/quote]
I agree with everything you said here.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you feel islam itself is problem as opposed to the people themselves?[/quote]
They are the same thing. Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. Prove to me that one of these religions is the objective truth and I’ll weigh that religion as purely an idea. Otherwise Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. And Christians win out over Muslims, generally speaking.
Here’s why (highly offensive drawing ahead):
That’s sort of a joke. The real reason lies in opinion polling. You can look that stuff up if you’re interested. Bill Maher and Sam Harris have spoken at length and well on it.[/quote]
I agree with everything you said here.[/quote]
How do you pro lifers feel about the innocents that are killed in war as collateral damage by the US. Are their murders justified for the greater outcome of the war?
[quote]Perlenbacher15 wrote:
So you lied about being an atheist against abortion and claimed christian morals had nothing to do with it in the first pages, now we know you were lying.
[/quote]
When you actually quote were I said any of that bullshit, which you can’t, then dance around a celebrate.
You’re fucking pathetic.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
How do you pro lifers feel about the innocents that are killed in war as collateral damage by the US. Are their murders justified for the greater outcome of the war? [/quote]
It fuckign sucks. Much like abortion… I can’t really change it either.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
But you feel islam itself is problem as opposed to the people themselves?[/quote]
They are the same thing. Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. Prove to me that one of these religions is the objective truth and I’ll weigh that religion as purely an idea. Otherwise Islam is Muslims, Christianity is Christians. And Christians win out over Muslims, generally speaking.
Here’s why (highly offensive drawing ahead):
That’s sort of a joke. The real reason lies in opinion polling. You can look that stuff up if you’re interested. Bill Maher and Sam Harris have spoken at length and well on it.[/quote]
I agree with everything you said here.[/quote]
How do you pro lifers feel about the innocents that are killed in war as collateral damage by the US. Are their murders justified for the greater outcome of the war? [/quote]
smh is not religious. In answer to your question, if they’re “collateral damage” that means that they were not specifically targeted. It means that they were killed by accident in the process of targeting a legitimate combatant. So if there is:
A. No intent to kill innocents
And
B. A concerted effort to avoid innocent casualties
Then how could anyone have a problem with it?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
smh is not religious. In answer to your question, if they’re “collateral damage” that means that they were not specifically targeted. It means that they were killed by accident in the process of targeting a legitimate combatant. So if there is:
A. No intent to kill innocents
And
B. A concerted effort to avoid innocent casualties
Then how could anyone have a problem with it?[/quote]
Oh no, you can have a big problem with it. You just can’t call it murder.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
smh is not religious. In answer to your question, if they’re “collateral damage” that means that they were not specifically targeted. It means that they were killed by accident in the process of targeting a legitimate combatant. So if there is:
A. No intent to kill innocents
And
B. A concerted effort to avoid innocent casualties
Then how could anyone have a problem with it?[/quote]
Oh no, you can have a big problem with it. You just can’t call it murder.
[/quote]
What I mean is, how can you have a problem with someone’s actions if they made every reasonable attempt to avoid civilian casualties?
Anyway, it’s really a meaningless question given Islamists kill ten times more of their own people than we do and they do it deliberately and we so it accidentally in the process of trying to stop them killing their own people.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyway, it’s really a meaningless question given Islamists kill ten times more of their own people than we do and they do it deliberately and we so it accidentally in the process of trying to stop them killing their own people.[/quote]
Sorry if I’m mistaken. But I do believe in another thread you said you agreed with the atomic bomb being dropped twice on Japan. can you really call the innocent deaths in that bombing an accident?
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyway, it’s really a meaningless question given Islamists kill ten times more of their own people than we do and they do it deliberately and we so it accidentally in the process of trying to stop them killing their own people.[/quote]
Sorry if I’m mistaken. But I do believe in another thread you said you agreed with the atomic bomb being dropped twice on Japan. can you really call the innocent deaths in that bombing an accident?[/quote]
I recommend caution if taking Japan’s side in world war 2…they were guilty of many many crimes against humanity in several countries. Also,the whole emperor is god thing and 70 million defending to the death comments of the leaders
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyway, it’s really a meaningless question given Islamists kill ten times more of their own people than we do and they do it deliberately and we so it accidentally in the process of trying to stop them killing their own people.[/quote]
Sorry if I’m mistaken. But I do believe in another thread you said you agreed with the atomic bomb being dropped twice on Japan. can you really call the innocent deaths in that bombing an accident?[/quote]
No you can’t. But you can argue that because 1) there were no precision munitions then (all other bombing had, more or less, been carpet bombing to varying degrees with mass collateral damage), 2) bombing the city as a whole was pretty accepted practice by ALL sides due to both different concept of war theater execution and lack of precision munitions, 3) it was projected to save hundreds of thousands of lives for both us and the japanese when considering a an all out war island hopping all the way back to mainland Japan and 4) we warned them several times and tried to get them to surrender
You can argue that it was in fact the best course of action.
[quote]confusion wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyway, it’s really a meaningless question given Islamists kill ten times more of their own people than we do and they do it deliberately and we so it accidentally in the process of trying to stop them killing their own people.[/quote]
Sorry if I’m mistaken. But I do believe in another thread you said you agreed with the atomic bomb being dropped twice on Japan. can you really call the innocent deaths in that bombing an accident?[/quote]
I recommend caution if taking Japan’s side in world war 2…they were guilty of many many crimes against humanity in several countries. Also,the whole emperor is god thing and 70 million defending to the death comments of the leaders
[/quote]
I’m not taking their side but they weren’t all guilty. I’m sure many children were killed.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Anyway, it’s really a meaningless question given Islamists kill ten times more of their own people than we do and they do it deliberately and we so it accidentally in the process of trying to stop them killing their own people.[/quote]
Sorry if I’m mistaken. But I do believe in another thread you said you agreed with the atomic bomb being dropped twice on Japan. can you really call the innocent deaths in that bombing an accident?[/quote]
No you can’t. But you can argue that because 1) there were no precision munitions then (all other bombing had, more or less, been carpet bombing to varying degrees with mass collateral damage), 2) bombing the city as a whole was pretty accepted practice by ALL sides due to both different concept of war theater execution and lack of precision munitions, 3) it was projected to save hundreds of thousands of lives for both us and the japanese when considering a an all out war island hopping all the way back to mainland Japan and 4) we warned them several times and tried to get them to surrender
You can argue that it was in fact the best course of action.
[/quote]
Thanks for the response. I can’t disagree with any of those points. I don’t know if I would agree that it was the best course of action. Although it did get the job done there’s no way to really know if it saved more lives than it took.