ll wrath ll wrote:
I am sure now you have not read through this posts, videos, or sources,
Hello wrath, welcome to the thread. You seem to be missing my points entirely much like SG so I will try to illuminate it better by explaining it more thoroughly. For starters:
I have read all
his posts. Some several times to see if I was indeed missing something.
I have watched through some
of his videos. Some I have seen only parts of and getting the jist of it stopped watching.
And sources? What sources?
Expecting people to watch through several 15 minute youtube-videos and search for whatever supports his claims is preposterous and dishonest. It would be like me telling you to go through law school and take some classes in history, political science and philosophy just so we could argue at the same level and see things the same way. That's not how it works. We are all here to discuss a topic and present persuasive arguments. Claiming that you are omnipotent and infallible and that just watching through a bunch of irrelevant youtube-videos over and over will be enough to see the same Truth is not persuasive argumentation. You need to explain exactly why this or that video is important, what in the video supports your other claims and a more precise reference to where this information can be found.
You seem to not understand why your youtube-videos aren't taken as seriously as you would like. While a scientific paper or statistics of some sort are usually made by a professional scholar and peer-reviewed for validity and relevance a youtube-video can be made by anyone. Let's say you need advice on how to raise a child, would you rather trust the advice from a homeless person on the streets or your mother? One is simply much more trustworthy than the other. Why is this so hard to understand? I offered a full "debunk" of a previous video that was presented as a source of truth, what is your explanation regarding that? Do you still hold it to be true?
ll wrath ll wrote:
I have a feeling this started when he challenged your notions of meeting in the middle between arguments.
This will be the last time I say this as I'm pretty much just repeating myself. Never have I appealed to a middle between arguments, if by that you mean the content. What I do mean is that arguments must be comparable in form. Sources must be of a kind that they can be easily scrutinized and challenged. Referring to a youtube-video without any further specification of what claim it supports and what and where this can be found is not good enough. You must use sources openly and make them vulnerable to attack. Whenever a source is challenged your rebuttal seems to be "it's there, you just have to look harder or watch it again and again". That's not how you present and deal with sources. If this is all you've got it shows just how weak a position you have and on this you base your entire knowledge. For someone claiming to hold the truth it's baffling that you think this is how you argue and use sources.
ll wrath ll wrote:
Let’s look at Merriam Webster’s definition of conspiracy theory…
A theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators.
This is the thing about conspiracy theories, people have no idea what the phrase means at all, it’s just a cover term for trying to give reasonable evidence, while you make up your own definition for the word. Islam isn’t secretly saying they want to take over the world, if you had bothered to view the video Fitna, you would see the Iranian president openly expressing this goal as much as Muslims have for over a millennia now.
It's good that you refer to official definitions to avoid obscurity. So you claim it is not a secret plot, but an open one. Ok. Let's start with what you miss, though. You seem to believe that if the Iranian president says something he is speaking for the entire muslim community. Would you think iranians to be right if they thought president Obama were speaking on behalf of the christian world? Or maybe even the entire western world? Surely you don't. The muslim world is not a unison collection of peoples, there are as many - or more - factions and disagreements as there are in the other religions. Furthermore politicians lie or say things without basis all the time. The fact that you think what the Iranian president says accurately reflects islamic sentiment and agenda does not do you service.
It's interesting to note that you after presumably reading the entire thread believe me to be a supporter or apologetic of Islam. I am viciously opposed to religion and Islam in particular. I welcome any criticism of Islam but that does not mean I throw away any standards of validity and reference. You and SG need to offer compelling arguments if you want to make a case. So far it has been nothing but questionable youtube-videos and an adamant attitude of being right and infallible. All the signs of the propagandist at work. Offer better arguments and valid sources and I will be your strongest supporter. Until then you are wasting everyone's time.
That said you here force me to act as devil's advocate and be an apologetic for Islam. Based on some quotes from the Qu'ran and taped statements from muslim leaders you are convinced there is an agenda to dominate the world, chop off heads and rape women. You are easily swayed so maybe that means it can be possible to get your feet back on the ground as well. Let's start by acknowledging that the Quran is a written source of a somewhat inaccessible language and needs interpretation in order to find its true meaning. This, I hope, is uncontroversial. Whatever meaning is found in religious texts changes over time and between cultures. Compare this to bibilical writings that have been differently interpreted over the centuries. Today there are controversies over abortion, sexual activities and sexual preferences. In earlier times there were disputes over slavery, science and much else. Much as the Bible is not to be taken literally so too goes for the Quran. The next question then is who has the authority to interpret what it says? Imams? Islam critics? Ardent supporters? The people at large? Well, this too varies between times and cultures. As in the middle ages biblical interpretation was an almost exclusive enterprise for the clergy it is today more a task for the people at large. As islamic countries are usually more authoritarian than its western counterparts it's not unreasonable to assume Imams hold most of the definitional power today. But they don't do so for eternity as history shows. By acknowledging the (crazy) Imams right to interpret the Quran you(we) are giving up definitional power and allowing Islam to be more extreme. By labeling the entire religion militaristic and evil you force moderate muslims to pick a side.
Just because the Quran(according to some) says something does not make it a truth. Just because some national or religious leaders say something does not make it a truth. What does the average muslim think? Are there variations in opinions from mulims in islamic countries to muslims in western countries? You are so incredibly unnuanced it's frightening. Sure enough it is chilling what some islamic leaders say but unless you can make a link between what they say and what muslims(the larger masses) do it falls in the same category as doomsday sayers and cultists in the west.
What's more you seem to blame angry sentiments on religion alone. You see a muslim and believe that defines him precisely. We are more than what label the demographers assign us. Is it not possible that a man from Iran could be more of an unemployed father, a frustrated young man or a hungry, homeless person? Have you considered the possibility that middle-easterns have been exploited for a long time, or at least that they perceive themselves as such and this in turn leaves them bewildered and uprooted seeking answers to their current state? That this dismembered state leads to a desperate search for belonging and explanation of the world where Islam fits like a glove? I challenged SG earlier to see whether birth rates would remain as high as they are in islamic countries when immigrants move to western nations. Apart from "you didn't read, go back and read it again" that challenge was not answered.
ll wrath ll wrote:
It even quotes the very Qu’ran saying these things as well. I don’t know what it is but you seem to have some driven need to try and pacify people participating in a debate by saying people need to meet in the middle. When you do this you offer militant belief systems actual legitimacy just in aims you won’t get attacked in the crossfire. Terran has backed up his sources many times while you have not even bothered to read them, I suggest you go back and do so.
If you by pacify mean making people use a civil tone and actually address each others claims and evidence, then yes this is exactly what I want. I don't understand what you mean by militant belief systems and giving them legitimacy, would you elaborate on this? Terran has never once backed up his sources when they were challenged. If you believe this to be the case, please show me where.