Orlando Night Club Terrors

[Gren]

This is like the textbook definition of bigotry, do realise you're trying to generalise the faith to ~1.5 billion Muslims? Yes, it's horrible for those you listed above but that isnt a Muslim problem that's a problem for the country you can't look at basically what is probably the most extremist/radical in the world and think it's the "significant majority" to the other billion in this world. Why not look at the countries which actually are the majority like Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Malaysia or Turkey? Using your example of Saudi arabia they have a population of 25million muslims, just Indonesia they have 205 million.

 

You cannot just point to an what you think is the "significant majority" and then assume because that a small fucked up nation is an example of everyone else, the biggest victims for these extremist groups if anything are Muslims. You think that a mass shooting or a few bomb threats are a big deal? Muslims are literally having their holy grounds bombed every day, their Mosques are getting destroyed on the daily more Muslim lives are lost from these terrorist attacks in a single day than America has lost in a bloody year. But please keep telling me how they are the "significant majority".

 

I agree on your points about Saudi Arabia but you cannot honestly think that they are representative of a majority of Muslims... That is like me pointing to the westboro baptist church and saying that all american christians are like that.

 

There are 10 countries world wide which practice Sharia Law.  Sharia law is of course ass backwards, it's essentially the same thing as if we'd start enforcing the 7 deadly sins as legal code.   It's not just some "small fucked up country" (and calling Saudi Arabia [Mecca is located in Saudi Arabia which of course is the birthplace of Mohammed] small in the context of Islam is like calling the Vatican small in the context of Christianity).  Btw, Indonesia isn't fucked?  Think again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Indonesia.  Further, 72% of Muslims in Indonesia believe that they should instate Sharia Law.  72 percent. 

 

Here's the issue really:  there isn't anything inherently moderate about Islam.  Whoa, bigot alert, right?  Hmm.  Ok so what percentage of Muslims women wear some sort of head dress designed to make their appearance modest.  Obviously it's pretty hard to get a number here, but what would you estimate it to be?  Let's say 60% (I think it's probably a lot higher than that).  Now do a test.  Ask all your non-Muslim female friends if they would be open to wearing a head scarf everytime they went out in public because their boyfriend said they needed to cover up to look more modest.  How many do you think will give you a favourable response?  I'd say zero.  What percentage of Muslims observes Ramadan, ie. fasting during the day?  Again, I'd bet it's pretty high, and I'll try to get a number if you want.  How many Christians still fast?  Not many.  Do you see where I'm coming from now?  Christianity had the reformation.  Please, please look it up if you don't know much about it, it is one of the most defining events in Christianity in the last 1,000 years and has a lot to do with the fact that while homosexuality is technically forbidden in the bible, nobody actually believes that shit, or at least doesn't believe that we should stone people for it.  

 

Islam is an unreformed religion.  It is holding onto its archaic religious anachronisms (e/g/ headscarves, fasting, literal interpretation of the texts) which is unlike Christianity or Judaism.  As I said, there are moderate Muslims.  But they are not the majority.  Islam needs reform BADLY.  I say that as an atheist, not a bigot.  

 

EDIT:  ....And this is why I initially said it's currently impossible to have an honest conversation about Islam.  Right away, you're called a bigot.  Yet, if I called out the Catholic Church for some of their atrocities that went on in the last 20 year (e.g. forbidding birth control, condemning homosexuality as a sin, etc.), do you think I would be called a bigot?  Or would I simply be called a critic with some valid points of concern?   You can call me what you want:  I know I am not a racist, I am not a sexist, I am not a bigot.  However, I am most certainly anti religion and the facts tell me that Islam is currently the most dangerous of the major religions.   Again, I want to remind you guys that this was my original statement.   Can you really argue against that?  Seriously, look up how European Muslims feel about suicide bombings, sharia law (the polls have been done and are easy to find).  After looking at those results, can you honestly still say that it's only a small minority of Muslims worldwide who could be counted as religious extremists? 

[Twins_Mercury]

Sooo, has anyone brought up that the shooter himself was "in the closet"?

[Explosion-chan]

Sooo, has anyone brought up that the shooter himself was "in the closet"?

No because he was Muslim and used a gun to do the shooting

[Professional Map Painter]

Why not look at the countries which actually are the majority like Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Malaysia or Turkey? Using your example of Saudi arabia they have a population of 25million muslims, just Indonesia they have 205 million.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/21/first-non-muslim-lashed-breaking-sharia-law-indonesian-province/83325572/

 

Erdogan isn't exactly a paragon of virtue, either.

[Hyperqube]

Here's the issue really: there isn't anything inherently moderate about Islam.  Whoa, bigot alert, right?

Yes. Pretty much. Nailed it.

 

It confirms what I already pointed out: your inability or unwillingness to differentiate between moderate muslims and radical muslims makes your incapable of having an honest discussion

 

You just wanna bash religion.

 

 

Erdogan isn't exactly a paragon of virtue, either.

And do tell us: What did Erdogan say about the Orlando attacks? Did he celebrate it, like Westboro did, or did he condemn it, like you, like me, like - for pete's sake - Saudia Arabia did?

[Gren]

Yes. Pretty much. Nailed it.

 

It confirms what I already pointed out: your inability or unwillingness to differentiate between moderate muslims and radical muslims makes your incapable of having an honest discussion

 

You just wanna bash religion.

 

 

And do tell us: What did Erdogan say about the Orlando attacks? Did he celebrate it, like Westboro did, or did he condemn it, like you, like me, like - for pete's sake - Saudia Arabia did?

 

I'll take the fact that you haven't responded to any of the facts I've presented you with as a sign that you're done.  Here's a tip:  if you want to argue against my claim that Islam is by far the most dangerous of the monotheistic religions and that most of the Muslim world is what we in the Western world would call extremist in regard to religion (meaning extreme adherence to religious doctrine, rarely seen in modern Christianity), simply define what moderate Islam is and where it occurs.  And no, anecdotal evidence doesn't count.  You need facts.  That's how debate works.  You present an hypothesis and then you back it up with facts.  Where are your facts? 

 

You are apparently unable to make any sort of a comeback except that you keep coming back at us with "But Saudi Arabia condemned the attacks and Westboro didn't!".  I don't even know what that's supposed to mean quite frankly.  Do you understand the political dynamics that exist between the US and Saudi Arabia?  Do you understand that politicians constantly say things they don't mean (e.g. Hilary doesn't admit to being a war criminal, when by definition, she is)?

 

Here's the majority Muslim world:

 

 

 

 

 

Now get on google and look up the human rights record of literally every single country on that map.  It's dynamite reading.  Female and male genital mutilation?  Check. Law based on Sharia?  Check.  Extreme homophobia and sometimes outright persecution?  Check.  Absence of women's rights (at least not to the same degree as we in the Western world define women rights)?  Check.  

 

So go ahead.  Look it up and if you don't agree, come back with some actual facts other than some Saudi politician saying shit to appease his allies.  

[Hyperqube]

Here's a tip:  if you want to argue against my claim that Islam is by far the most dangerous of the monotheistic religions

Here's a tip: I don't. Just like I don't want to argue against you the the sun does in fact exist.

 

I could litterly stand around doing nothing, and I would have it spend more productive then endulging you in your ignorance.

Becaue there is no other word then assinine then lumping all the muslims who condemn the attack together with the shooter; opposite to all the people, muslim or non-muslim, who celebrate them.

[funkle]

Here's a tip: I don't. Just like I don't want to argue against you the the sun does in fact exist.

 

I could litterly stand around doing nothing, and I would have it spend more productive then endulging you in your ignorance.

Becaue there is no other word then assinine then lumping all the muslims who condemn the attack together with the shooter; opposite to all the people, muslim or non-muslim, who celebrate them.

>Calls people ignorant, wont check his own facts

>Makes totally irrelevant comparison to start off his rebuttal

>Doesnt make any good points, just tries to discredit people for being being more rightwinged on the topic than him

 

Yup, looks like Hyperqube is trying to debate again. Heads up, even though this is the forums this isnt anything like 5th grade debate club. Doesnt work like that bud.

[Gren]

Here's a tip: I don't. Just like I don't want to argue against you the the sun does in fact exist.

 

I could litterly stand around doing nothing, and I would have it spend more productive then endulging you in your ignorance.

Becaue there is no other word then assinine then lumping all the muslims who condemn the attack together with the shooter; opposite to all the people, muslim or non-muslim, who celebrate them.

 

Arguments are a lot like gun fights.  You're going to need plenty of ammo to win.  Once you're out of ammo, all that's left to you is to dodge bullets.  Seems to me like you ran out of bullets a long time ago.  Next time, bring more ammo, i.e. look up some actual facts, ignore what puppet politicians are telling the media, and focus more on what we know, rather than how we feel. 

[Twins_Mercury]

Arguments are a lot like gun fights.  You're going to need plenty of ammo to win.  Once you're out of ammo, all that's left to you is to dodge bullets.  Seems to me like you ran out of bullets a long time ago.  Next time, bring more ammo, i.e. look up some actual facts, ignore what puppet politicians are telling the media, and focus more on what we know, rather than how we feel. 

 

More like nerf gun fights, because it never ends and no one actually wins. The only result is you all wasted your damn time.

[Officer Friendly]

TheMCBros99, on 12 Jun 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

Last night in Orlando, a night club was shot up by a gunman. 50 suspected dead, and 53 and counting injured.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2...tclub-shooting/

 

Not to mention it was a "gay-club"

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same way knives don't spring to life and kill people, and knives are even more widely used then guns.

[Hyperqube]

Arguments are a lot like gun fights. You're going to need plenty of ammo to win.

 

i.e. look up some actual facts

FACT 1: Westboro celebrate the attacks

 

FACT 2: Westboro is NOT islam - it's a radical form of chrisitanity

 

FACT 3: People who are unable to acknowledge that moderate followers are absolutely not the same as radical followers - are unable to have an honest debate about religion.

 

FACT 4: Various muslim communities - amongest other EVEN those frequently accused of being radical - condemn the attacks.

 

 

Bullets? Meet bunker - because no matter how much rethoric you chew and vitriol you spew, the above will not change.

 

Go hate on islam somewhere else.

[Hyperqube]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same way knives don't spring to life and kill people,

See, that's the problem, ain't it? Because, if you haven't figured it out, nobody's blaming the gun. The gun is not at fault. In fact - the gun did exactly what it was designed to do.

 

The complaint usually is that he can get an extremely lethal weapon easily.

 

Be it an assault rifle - or a knife with the same lethality ... if such a knife were to exist.

 

 

 

and knives are even more widely used then guns.

But knives are also a lot more prevelent and easily obtainable then guns. Heck, if I go in much kitchen, I cna get a dozen of them, each lethal enough to realistically kill someone.

 

And I don't get how people who are pro-gun use this argument: It's quite litterely arguing "Look, you can clearly see the more prevelent weapon kill more people, so we should have more guns; not less"

[Gren]

FACT 1: Westboro celebrate the attacks

 

FACT 2: Westboro is NOT islam - it's a radical form of chrisitanity

 

FACT 3: People who are unable to acknowledge that moderate followers are absolutely not the same as radical followers - are unable to have an honest debate about religion.

 

FACT 4: Various muslim communities - amongest other EVEN those frequently accused of being radical - condemn the attacks.

 

 

Bullets? Meet bunker - because no matter how much rethoric you chew and vitriol you spew, the above will not change.

 

Go hate on islam somewhere else.

 

 

I already discredited all of those arguments.  Try again.  

 

I mean, c'mon man.  What does Westboro have to do this with any of this?  This argument never had a place in this discussion in the first place.  And nobody is arguing that there aren't moderate individuals who call themselves Muslim.  I am arguing that the whole concept of Islam is dangerous, the ideas inherent to this philosophy are dangerous, and by extension, political , social, economic and religious adherence to this philosophy is dangerous.   This is what we're arguing about.  Now, please stop with the Westboro argument (some tiny hardcore Christian sect who by the way has never been linked to terrorism is not the subject of this discussion), please stop defending Saudi Arabia (even the most hardcore leftists wouldn't go so far as to defend Saudi Arabia.  And painting Saudi Arabia as a pro-LGBT society [which is what you seem to be attempting] is laughable at best, if not downright dangerous in it's implication of willful ignorance to facts).  

[♠Derpeh♤]

 

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same way knives don't spring to life and kill people, and knives are even more widely used then guns.

 

 

Which is exactly the problem. People kill people. Thing is when you give easy access to firearms to said person they now have the power to mow down crowds in seconds.

 

Gun control isnt banning guns it's about stopping/preventing those who shouldn't have a gun from owning one.

 

In this case a man on 2 seperate terrorist watchlists and was known/documented to be emotionally unstable with a violent temper was allowed to legally purchase multiple firearms days before he decided to go on a shooting spree...

[Hyperqube]

What does Westboro have to do this with any of this? This argument never had a place in this discussion in the first place.

To repeat

there is no other word then assinine then lumping all the muslims who condemn the attack together with the shooter; opposite to all the people, muslim or non-muslim, who celebrate them.

And you go the nerve to ask what Westboro got to do with it. What never had a place in this thread was you.

[Gren]

To repeat

there is no other word then assinine then lumping all the muslims who condemn the attack together with the shooter; opposite to all the people, muslim or non-muslim, who celebrate them.

And you go the nerve to ask what Westboro got to do with it. What never had a place in this thread was you.

 

 

 

>Calls people ignorant, wont check his own facts

>Makes totally irrelevant comparison to start off his rebuttal

>Doesnt make any good points, just tries to discredit people for being being more rightwinged on the topic than him

 

Yup, looks like Hyperqube is trying to debate again. Heads up, even though this is the forums this isnt anything like 5th grade debate club. Doesnt work like that bud.

 

^

 

The only thing I would add is that Hypercube quotes one sentence out of a 3 paragraph reply, re-contextualizes that sentence to fit his own narrative, while obviously completely ignoring the larger argument (this is how he replies literally every single time).  Impossible to argue with someone like that, it's like trying to play fetch with a cat.  

[Hyperqube]

BTW, I would like to congratulate the authorities on stopping James Wesley Howell before he could shoot up gay people at the gay parade on the same day as the Orlando shooting

 

 

James Wesley Howell - obviously a muslim, as you can see my his obvious muslim name - only confirms Grens point: That it's the Islam which is the probem - and not people - muslim or non-muslim - holding to radical thoughts.

 

 

 

Edit: oh, another factoid, just to point out, that moderate muslims do in fact exist (like there was every any doubt): Percentage wise, people in favor of gay marriage (numbers from the PEW research)

• U.S. muslims: 44%
• U.S. protestants: 39%
• U.S. mormons: 26%
• U.S. Jehovah's Witnesses: 14%

  .

  And in case you wonder ...

  .

• Republicans (2016): 33%

  (a slow & steady rise since Republicans (2006): 17%)

[meme chan]

BTW, I would like to congratulate the authorities on stopping James Wesley Howell before he could shoot up gay people at the gay parade on the same day as the Orlando shooting

 

 

James Wesley Howell - obviously a muslim, as you can see my his obvious muslim name - only confirms Grens point: That it's the Islam which is the probem - and not people - muslim or non-muslim - holding to radical thoughts.

 

 

 

Edit: oh, another factoid, just to point out, that moderate muslims do in fact exist (like there was every any doubt): Percentage wise, people in favor of gay marriage (numbers from the PEW research)

• U.S. muslims: 44%
• U.S. protestants: 39%
• U.S. mormons: 26%
• U.S. Jehovah's Witnesses: 14%

  .

  And in case you wonder ...

  .

• Republicans (2016): 33%

  (a slow & steady rise since Republicans (2006): 17%)

 

Yeah, going to need sources on those stats.

[Hyperqube]

Yeah, going to need sources on those stats.

Pew reserach. I believe a 2016 studie but I'm not sure. A 2 seconds of google didn't find me the article I got the numbers from, but it did give me these. While not the same question/year - it reaches a simelar conclusion.

 

This was my source for the 33% republican who are in favor of Gay marriage

 

[GMSkaldak]

 

And that's the problem, ain't it? Why does Westboro celebrate the attacks? They are christians.

 

Look, just use common sense:

Should the 70% of the US that is christian - be judged on what Westboro does? Of course not.

Or, should the 40%(?) of the US that is is right wing - be jugded on what the KKK does? Of course not.

 

 

First let me start by saying that whatever form of Christianity Westboro subscribes to is 100% biblically incorrect; you can spend five minutes reading anywhere in the gospel and see that. They might claim it, but they don't live it.

 

On a completely different note...your argument doesn't hold up.

 

Westboro baptist church has, according to Wikipedia (poor source I know), 40 members, making it the "minority of minorities" in the total population of 2 or so billion Christians.

 

 

and the rethoric in the world doesn't chance the fact that they condemn the attack.

 

 

The Saud family (royalty/rulers of Saudi Arabia) has an estimated 15,000 members. So let's say that 15,000 out of 1.3-1.5 Billion Muslims condemned the attacks, and yet somehow you think that means anything?

 

The extreme minority of "Christians" celebrate the attack, while the extreme minority of Muslims condemn it.

 

So to answer your question, no, Westboro does not represent the majority of Christians, just like Saudi Arabia does not represent the majority of Muslims.

[Hyperqube]

First let me start by saying that whatever form of Christianity Westboro subscribes to is 100% biblically incorrect; you can spend five minutes reading anywhere in the gospel and see that. They might claim it, but they don't live it.

 

Here's the problem though - that's not how religion/theology works. While you might be true about Westboro, the common example given is that the bible suppositly says christians shouldn't eat shrimp, so by your reasoning, virtually no christian "lives it". IIRC Jehovah's Witnesses are one of the strongest literal interpretation of the bible - yet it would be folly to say they are the only christians.

 

One of the first hings you see if you study theology, is that a christian is not defined by someone who follows the bible. It is that someone "belongs" to a religion - if they follow what they believe is the interpretation of that religion.

Catholics are christians, Ortodox christians are christians, even Westboro nutcases are christians. -- dispite having different interpretations of what that encompasses

 

Likewise, both a moderate U.S. muslim & an ISIS member are muslim, dispite their interpretes the islam is vastly different.

 

 

 

 

So to answer your question, no, Westboro does not represent the majority of Christians, just like Saudi Arabia does not represent the majority of Muslims.

And I would 100% agree to that. But I never claimed that

 

You seem to have missed the context:

 

So go ahead and ask all the "moderate" muslims in Saudi Arabia (the West's biggest Arab ally in the middle East) what they think of these attacks. They'll probably be too busy to answer you though since they'll be beheading people in soccer stadiums precisely because it's in their book.

-- Gren

The Saudi Family isn't usually even considered moderate - and yet even they condemn the attacks.

I'm not the one who first mentioned the Saudis - it was a response.

 

The Saud family (royalty/rulers of Saudi Arabia) has an estimated 15,000 members. So let's say that 15,000 out of 1.3-1.5 Billion Muslims condemned the attacks, and yet somehow you think that means anything?

 

The extreme minority of "Christians" celebrate the attack, while the extreme minority of Muslims condemn it.

Err ... you realise that there's a difference between "the saudi royal family condemns the attacks" and "ONLY the saudi royal family condemns the attacks"

 

Seeing as the Saudi Family isn't usually considere moderate, I would think "EVEN ..." is more appropriate word.

[r0b420]

oops