What do you think of what this muslim woman has to say?

[austriancomb]

 

I know it can be a sensitive topic, please don't get upset.

[AFFIRMATIVE]

Not going to lie, it's kind of a breath of fresh air compared to all that circlejerk i've seen here (lou zephyr) and debates like the one from Bill Maher with Ben Affleck.

 

It's a perspective where she doesn't have a bias when people put everyone in the same bowl (all muslims are bad) or puts no one in (99.9% of muslims don't agree with extremism).

 

I always hated that, a lot of people always use an argument with a black and white perspective on extremism based on the news and all the shit they see, its either evil isis beheadings, or its almost all innocent people who are exactly not evil. Both parties end up bashing eachother for being either too far to the left or too far to the right, which turns into a conversation on who argues better.

 

Thus, political correctness comes in effect and it makes the subject so sensitive that it turns people too reluctant to even start it because they will get flamed for it.

 

Having an honest conversation that brings facts to the table makes progression easier based on those facts, and it ends up creating an idea that is reinforced by people rightfully disagreeing with eachother when needed in order to not be too biased.

 

Thanks for showing this 

[austriancomb]

Thanks for the response.

It always irks me how people will defend Islam no matter what when a very visible threat can be seen in this religion. It also is annoying how people say all Muslims want you dead because the reality is that some Muslims don't actually follow the words written in the Qu'ran.

 

Do you think in light of this information we should be more wary of Muslim immigrants?

Personally I think the percentage of Muslims holding "extremist" views is high enough that there is a significant risk of death of westerners if we do not focus on Islam and it's followers.

 

26% of American Muslims say that killing westerners in the name of Allah can be justified. This is shocking to me and I do not wish for that percentage to increase.

[Don Quixote]

 

 

26% of American Muslims say that killing westerners in the name of Allah can be justified. This is shocking to me and I do not wish for that percentage to increase.

 

Would you mind linking me to where you got this from? If it's in the video, sorry, I don't have time to watch it atm.

[austriancomb]

Would you mind linking me to where you got this from? If it's in the video, sorry, I don't have time to watch it atm.

 

It is from PEW Research. It's in the video @12:20

Specifically "suicide bombings against civilians can be justified".

[♠Derpeh♤]

debates like the one from Bill Maher.

 

Bill Maher is quite interesting imo he is probably one of the few public figures who is actually well informed on the subject matter however still comes to the wrong conclusion. A lot of his more serious debates are actually backed up with examples and research but when you realise he is using the actions of a few thousand to generalise a religion which is comprised of nearly 2billion people...Problem is the general public sees that he is well informed then adopt the same/similar views as him.

The worse part is most who take a shit on allah dont seem to understand that allah and the christian god are the same being and that thw fundamentals of Muslims are virtually identical...

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

26% of American Muslims say that killing westerners in the name of Allah can be justified. This is shocking to me and I do not wish for that percentage to increase.

 

What percentage of white americans think killing muslims can be justified?

 

(You don't really need to answer that, but I'm sure you can follow the point. Based on the white teen userbase of this forum it'd be 75%+)

[AFFIRMATIVE]

Do you think in light of this information we should be more wary of Muslim immigrants?

Personally I think the percentage of Muslims holding "extremist" views is high enough that there is a significant risk of death of westerners if we do not focus on Islam and it's followers.

 

Honestly .. i don't know, i really wish i had an answer that would make both parties pro and against muslims consider it, but i really don't have an answer that doesn't trigger one of the two said parties..

 

Bill Maher is quite interesting imo he is probably one of the few public figures who is actually well informed on the subject matter however still comes to the wrong conclusion. A lot of his more serious debates are actually backed up with examples and research but when you realise he is using the actions of a few thousand to generalise a religion which is comprised of nearly 2billion people...Problem is the general public sees that he is well informed then adopt the same/similar views as him.

The worse part is most who take a shit on allah dont seem to understand that allah and the christian god are the same being and that thw fundamentals of Muslims are virtually identical...

 

Of course, i actually enjoy him and his show, although there are a few questionable guests that were invited to his show (probably to boost ratings), but i guess i should've specified the interview with him and Ben Affleck on my post above.

 

My only problem with Bill Maher is somewhat the same one with Richard Dawkins, and that both of them have methods of argument that are too .. blunt. I can understand Maher since he is a talk show host even though he can really be one sided some times without even considering the other side, but Richard Dawkins was a Professor for public understanding of science, and i'm afraid that his blunt, sharp arguments might not correspond to his title as an educator.

 

This is the difference, there is no persuasion in what Dawkins is doing when he argues about religion and evolution, while he is articulate and very smart, he just bluntly puts the vast amount of facts on the table, with small consideration of what the other party perceives the facts.

 

He has this way of saying it like "You believe in your religion, here are the reasons why you're wrong" instead of saying it like "You believe in your religion, here are the other reasons as to why your religion might not be necessarily right, but you must understand the other perspectives".

 

This isn't only addressed to Dawkins, a more sympathetic approach creates an impact that makes a person consider what he would say, instead of making the person think of a counter argument for him because he's wrong, and because of that he is known for putting people down in arguments, rather than educating them. There are titles on youtube like "Dawkins destroys ignorant christian", "Dawkins puts down cocky muslim", "Dawkins completely shits on, ravages, head on demolish the living shit out of a stupid ignorant believer" (okay maybe i exaggerated on the last one but you see my point  )

[Sniper Noob]

What percentage of white americans think killing muslims can be justified?

 

(You don't really need to answer that, but I'm sure you can follow the point. Based on the white teen userbase of this forum it'd be 75%+)

 

That's fair, but at the same time not totally fair. Muslims want to kill Americans simply because they're not Muslim and see them as "infidel." I think the Americans who want to kill Muslims (most of them anyway) think it's ok because they see the terrorism around the world. Had these terrorist attacks not happened, I don't think Americans would have an issue with Muslims (other than the already racist/xenophobic ones), yet Muslims would still think killing Americans is justified. 

[Teeny Tiny Cat]

That's fair, but at the same time not totally fair. Muslims want to kill Americans simply because they're not Muslim and see them as "infidel." I think the Americans who want to kill Muslims (most of them anyway) think it's ok because they see the terrorism around the world. Had these terrorist attacks not happened, I don't think Americans would have an issue with Muslims (other than the already racist/xenophobic ones), yet Muslims would still think killing Americans is justified. 

 

Lol y'all were killing muslims by the thousands before 9/11, don't be silly.

[Keroro1454]

I'm honestly surprised.

 

Not by the video, which I thought was interesting and very well put-together. But by the fact that yet another alt of Lou actually posted something not totally b8-y.

[Professional Map Painter]

I'd say we're in a similar situation to McCarthyism in the 50's. Obviously not everybody's a terrorist, but they're a significant threat.

 

Lol y'all were killing muslims by the thousands before 9/11, don't be silly.

The Russians in Afghanistan were. Saddam instigated the Gulf War.

[Hyperqube]

26% of American Muslims say that killing westerners in the name of Allah can be justified

 

It is from PEW Research. It's in the video @12:20

Specifically "suicide bombings against civilians can be justified".

Do note that "suicide bombings against civilians" =/= "killing westerners in the name of Allah"

 

 

consider this: Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for all intends and purposes, put an end to the World War on the oriental front, dispite basically being used on civilian targets (if you want to debate that - lets presume that it was, for the sake of the thought experiment).

Can you see a rational person saying "yes, it was horrible, but I believe the alternative was way worse"?

Now, replace 'nuke' with 'suicide bomb' ...

 

So, now I ask you: what do you think? can suicide bombings against civilians be justified?

 

 

While I'm against war (be it religious or 'normal'), my answer to that question is yes.

if there is the alternative (not bombing civilians) results in a worse situation (by whatever criteria I use), then it can be justified.

I won't *like* that it's done - and if there's a viable alternative, that one should be prefered ... but ... the lesser of two evils and all that ...

[The Penguins]

 

I know it can be a sensitive topic, please don't get upset.

Not trying to pick on you, but isn't it ironic that even you yourself are afraid of offending people when we're trying to have open discussion on this topic. Just comes to show how the world has become so scared of offending anyone and focused on pleasing everyone

[AFFIRMATIVE]

I'm honestly surprised.

 

Not by the video, which I thought was interesting and very well put-together. But by the fact that yet another alt of Lou actually posted something not totally b8-y.

 

[3.50]

Hmm. I'm not a fan of Islam at all, but that video wasn't an "honest conversation" so much as it was cherry-picked examples and numbers designed to scare people.

 

"___% of Muslims are in favor of ___, and doesn't that seem like an extreme thing to be in favor of?"

 

Sure, ok; but what percentage of 'muricans, or Christians, or atheists are in favor of things that are extreme, or can easily be made to appear that way? Abortion, for one. I know how polarizing that issue is, so all I'll say on the matter is that some of us find a way to live alongside others who are, in their opinion, in favor of killing babies.

 

The truth is, Muslims (in general, not necessarily in person) make me nervous, partly because of the beliefs they hold. But you know who else makes me nervous because of their beliefs? Every-f*&^ing-one else.

 

I'm not saying we should ignore what this woman has to say, though--quite the opposite. We should listen, enter into dialogue, and become educated. But not just about Muslims. About the world, and everyone in it.

[3.50]

Not trying to pick on you, but isn't it ironic that even you yourself are afraid of offending people when we're trying to have open discussion on this topic.

I think he's afraid of b@, rather than just of offending people, per se "

[Sniper Noob]

Lol y'all were killing muslims by the thousands before 9/11, don't be silly.

 

There were Muslim terrorist attacks (including several on the US or US personnel abroad) before 9/11 as well. I'm not trying to justify any killing of Muslims by Americans, and I don't believe it's any more just than what they do. What I am saying however is that overwhelmingly, American killing of Muslims are a response to terror attacks, while Muslim terror attacks are unprovoked. It's fine to say both cases are stupid, and I'd agree with that. But it's "silly" to say we've had conflicts with Muslims for no reason and just kill them willy nilly for fun. 

[Python.]

Based on the white teen userbase of this forum it'd be 75%+

 

White, privileged teen here.

 

lol. 

 

Clearly the UK is not at fault whatsoever and it's all the Americans who can't stand Muslims right?

Many educated Americans know most Muslims are not extremists and can tolerate their religion in America

Lastly, why the hell would the population of these forums be used for basis for anything? 

Stop stereotyping. It's bad for an argument and you do it a lot.

[♠Derpeh♤]

American killing of Muslims are a response to terror attacks, while Muslim terror attacks are unprovoked.

 

Not exactly "unprovoked" they didnt just wake up hate westerners and then decide to bomb them. I believe it started because westerners, most notably America kept intervening with affairs of the muslim worlds to the point where they were basically in "control" the government. This lead of extremists wanting to drive them away from "their land" with their religion as basis. There were plenty of disputes and rising tension well before 9/11 so it wasnt exactly just out of the blue :S

[Sniper Noob]

Not exactly "unprovoked" they didnt just wake up hate westerners and then decide to bomb them. I believe it started because westerners, most notably America kept intervening with affairs of the muslim worlds to the point where they were basically in "control" the government. This lead of extremists wanting to drive them away from "their land" with their religion as basis. There were plenty of disputes and rising tension well before 9/11 so it wasnt exactly just out of the blue :S

 

But again, they hate us mostly because they consider us a direct opposition to the way they see the world and how it should be run. At least originally. Yes, we shouldn't have gotten involved there, that obviously didn't do shit and if anything made it worse. 

[Buy my mixtape fam]

While I myself am guilty of, at times, overprotecting Islam, I do think it's at the point that there needs to be tighter screening of Muslim immigrants. But at the same time, there's also a fine line between keeping an eagle eye and being an idiot like that Trump guy, and banning Muslims from entering the country. 

[thresher]

While I myself am guilty of, at times, overprotecting Islam, I do think it's at the point that there needs to be tighter screening of Muslim immigrants. But at the same time, there's also a fine line between keeping an eagle eye and being an idiot like that Trump guy, and banning Muslims from entering the country. 

We are at war, this is not the first time we have proposed to temporarily ban certain groups of people from entering the United States. Please explain why you think Trump is an idiot for intending on temporarily preventing Muslims from entering our country.

[Hyperqube]

on 1:16 - "most of the terrorism in the world today involves muslims" is, btw, is true ...  because 1 on 4 people are muslim in the world, and the countries with the most terrorist attacks are iraq (3.4K*), pakistan (1.8K*) & afghanistan (1.6K*) ((*: numbers in 2014; with the 4th (india) being at 0.8K ))

 

So, likewise, most of the terrorism in the world today are against muslims

 

We are at war, this is not the first time we have proposed to temporarily ban certain groups of people from entering the United States.

indeed. but do note that for instance japanese interment camps are one of the darkest moments in U.S. history.

 

"we did it before" =/= "it's a good idea"

 

 

Please explain why you think Trump is an idiot for intending on temporarily preventing Muslims from entering our country.

Lets start with a european moderate muslim, who's going on holiday ... (not even going to touch that he might have said it also applied to U.S. mulsims who happen to be abroad)

 

... Do you want an explenation why it's stupid to bar someone, because someone else, in an other country, believes something different b.t.w. then you do?

 

Or refugees

 

... Do you want an explenation why it's stupid to bar someone, because they happen to pray to the same God?

 

Or lets talk about the consitution

 

... Do you need an explentation why it's stupid to say "you have freedom to believe what you want when you are IN the country, not when you ENTER the country?"

 

Or lets talk about ISIS

 

... Do you need an explenation how ISIS will spin that in saying "see? we were right! there is no gray zone for moderate muslims. so join the dark side"

[thresher]

The ideology of the people who we are at war with is Islam. Saying, "oh well some are peaceful" is meaningless as the violence is written into the religion itself. I don't know where youre getting "mosty terrorists are against muslims" from, but Islamic terrorists find their inspiration in islamic scripture, this, seems like blind defense  on your part.

 

 

The laws allowing the president to make the call on whether we should prevent certain groups from entering the USA have not been repealed because they are needed for national security.

 

Why is it not a good idea to prevent immigration those who claim to adhere to the ideology that our current enemies point to as their inspiration? I would say it would be a bad idea not to prevent them. Nobody said anything about internment camps for US citizens, we are talking about citizens of other countries. Non-citizens are not protected under the constitution.

 

Saying "oh well these people will become radicalized if we don't allow them into our country" is pretty feeble, if they are so easily swayed to radicalization then why would you think that they could not be swayed when anyone can point to the scriptures they carry and say, "look, this is what Muhammad wants you to do".?

Better to have them radicalized outside of our borders, away from our family, friends, wives and children.

 

Taking mortal risks with others lives just to foster the illusion of tolerance cannot be prudent.

 

Telling someone that they have the freedom to believe that you, your country, everyone you know, and you way of life should be destroyed is fine, but why would you insist on allowing these people within vicinity of these things? Sacrifcing yourself and everything you love for political correctness is pure stupidity or masochism.

 

 

It comes down to, if someone claims to believe in what is written in the book that the enemies of western civilzation use as a guide for their attacks on western civilzation and its values... when this is what we are at war with, they should be under the utmost scrutiny. And if they are not United States citizens it would be better to exclude them than risk the 26% chance they have alterior motives for coming to our country. Its really just common sense.

 

The kind of thinking that you regurgitate is directly responsible for deaths of westerners.

But I don't know, maybe that is the goal of what has gotten a hold of you.